The Defendants design, manufacture, and market prescription drugs,including the testosterone therapy ANDROGEL(R). ANDROGEL(R) is aform of testosterone replacement therapy, indicated for thetreatment and prevention of low testosterone levels caused byhypogonadism. Hypogonadism is a specific condition of the sexglands which, in men, may result in the diminished production ornonproduction of testosterone.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants fraudulently concealedand intentionally omitted certain material information from thePlaintiff, prescribing physicians, healthcare providers, the U.S.Food and Drug Administration, consumers, and the general publicthat, among other things, ANDROGEL(R) is unsafe and dangerous tousers and that the risk of adverse events with ANDROGEL(R) washigher than represented.

ABBVIE INC: Faces AndroGel Suit in Cook County Court in Ill.------------------------------------------------------------Annie Cosby, writing for The Cook County Record, reports that themanufacturer of a testosterone gel is facing another suit inChicago over claims its product is unsafe.

Richard A. Martin filed a lawsuit June 3 in the Cook CountyCircuit Court against Abbvie Inc., citing product liability.According to the suit, Mr. Martin, of Iowa, suffered a stroke onJan. 11 after being prescribed and taking AndroGel, a prescriptiondrug the defendant manufactures and distributes with the purposeof providing men a boost of testosterone.

Mr. Martin accuses AbbVie of failing to warn the public of thehealth hazards associated with the drug, as well as negligence,breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty andnegligent misrepresentation.

Mr. Martin is seeking more than $50,000 in damages. He is beingrepresented in the case by attorneys Gary D. McCallister of GaryD. McCallister & Associates LLC and George M. Fleming and Rand P.Nolen of Fleming, Nolen & Jez LLP.

This marks at least the second suit filed in the Cook CountyCircuit Court since April over AndroGel. A Pennsylvania womanfiled suit April 18 against AbbVie and others, claiming herhusband died after using the drug.

Cook County Circuit Court Case No. 2014L005860.

ANNIE'S INC: Glancy Binkow Files Investor Class Action in Calif.----------------------------------------------------------------Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of Annie's,Inc., has filed a class action lawsuit in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Northern District of California on behalfof a class comprising all purchasers of Annie's, Inc. securitiesbetween August 8, 2013 and June 3, 2014, inclusive.

Please contact Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, toll-free at (888)773-9224 or at (212) 682-5340, or by email toshareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter.

-- The Company's historical methodology for estimating certain trade allowances did not include all related trade promotion costs.

-- The Company's controls over accounting for contract manufacturing did not sufficiently evaluate the valuation and accuracy of all contract manufacturing receivables and payables.

-- The Company had a material weakness in its ability to detect misstatements as a result of its insufficient controls.

-- As a result of its inadequate internal and financial controls, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On June 2, 2014, Annie's, Inc. disclosed that the Company hadidentified a material weakness in its internal control overfinancial reporting that was not effective as of March 31, 2014.According to the Company, the material weakness related to "aninsufficient complement of finance and accounting resources . . .resulting in design deficiencies in certain areas in which ourcontrols were not precise enough to detect misstatements that inthe aggregate could be material to the consolidated financialstatements." Then, on June 3, 2014, after the market close,Annie's announced that its independent registered publicaccounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, was resigningeffective the earlier of August 11, 2014, or the completion of theCompany's filing with the SEC of the Form 10-Q for the periodending June 30, 2014.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move theCourt no later than 60 days from the date of this Notice to serveas lead plaintiff, if you meet certain legal requirements. To bea member of the Class you need not take any action at this time;you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remainan absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more aboutthis action, or have any questions concerning this announcement oryour rights or interests with respect to these matters, pleasecontact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & GoldbergLLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California90067, Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, or contact Gregory Linkh,Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP at 122 E. 42nd Street,Suite 2920, New York, New York 10168, at (212) 682-5340, by e-mailto shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website athttp://www.glancylaw.com

If you inquire by email please include your mailing address,telephone number and number of shares purchased.

BAE SYSTEMS: Judge Tosses Bid to Pare Down Sex Bias Class Action----------------------------------------------------------------Alex Lawson, writing for Law360, reports that a Virginia federaljudge on June 10 shot down a BAE Systems subsidiary's bid to paredown a proposed class action alleging rampant discriminationagainst female employees, ruling that the complaint withstood thehigher bar for class allegations laid out by the U.S. SupremeCourt three years ago.

Specifically, Judge Allen said Ms. Aviles and the other women havealleged that BAE's senior management publicly demonstrateddiscriminatory behavior, amounting to far more specific chargesthan those in Dukes, which relied on what the court deemed aninconclusive study and anecdotal data points on employmentdecisions.

"Such allegations, coupled with the fact that the managers in thiscase . . . are concentrated in one location, make it plausiblethat defendants have encouraged a company-wide attitude ofdiscrimination that has 'manifested itself in hiring and promotionpractices in the same general fashion' with respect to allprospective class members," the judge wrote.

The women filed suit against the BAE shipping unit last year,claiming their supervisors were "indifferent" to complaints thatthey were repeatedly passed over for promotions, were deniedaccess to overtime and endured inappropriate sexual comments andbehavior from their male counterparts. The complaint also accusedBAE of fostering a hostile work environment, sexual discriminationand gender-based harassment.

BAE soon filed parallel motions to partially dismiss the suit onprocedural grounds and also strike the class allegations, both ofwhich were felled by Judge Allen's order on June 10.

Along with its failure to dismiss the claims under Dukes, BAE wasalso unable to rule that the proposed class claims ofdiscriminatory hiring were time-barred. Judge Allen found thateven if the hiring claims could not hold up on their own, theyeventually could be used to support other components of the case,such as their claims of discriminatory pay.

"Specifically, it is possible that defendants will respond tonamed plaintiffs' discriminatory pay claims by arguing thatplaintiffs' pay is based on gender-neutral pay scales,"Judge Allen said. "Named plaintiffs' discriminatory hiringallegations help to rebut this argument by asserting that womenare placed at lower ranks on these scales than equally qualifiedmen, resulting in women receiving lower pay despite the facialneutrality of the pay system."

The case is Aviles et al. v. BAE Systems Norfolk Ship Repair Inc.,case number 2:13-cv-00418, in U.S. District Court for the EasternDistrict of Virginia.

BANK OF NEW YORK: Investors Sue Over Mortgage Securities Losses---------------------------------------------------------------Karen Freifeld, writing for Reuters, reports that institutionalinvestors including BlackRock Inc. and Allianz SE's Pimco onJune 18 sued six of the largest bond trustees, accusing them offailing to properly oversee more than $2 trillion in mortgage-backed securities issued in the run-up to the 2008 financialcrisis.

The lawsuits, filed in New York state court, claim the trusteesbreached their duties to investors by failing to force lenders andsponsors of the securities to repurchase defective loans, thesuits claim. The investors are seeking damages for losses thatexceed $250 billion and relate to over 2,200 residential mortgage-backed securities trusts issued between 2004 and 2008, accordingto a person familiar with the cases.

The trustees that were sued include units of U.S. Bank, Citibank,Deutsche Bank, Wells Fargo & Co., HSBC, and Bank of New YorkMellon. Representatives for the banks declined comment or did notimmediately respond to requests for comment.

The lawsuits come after a New York appeals court ruling inDecember that determined the six-year statute of limitations tobring breach-of-contract cases against the issuers of mortgagesecurities began when the transactions were executed. The rulingmeans that for many cases it is too late to sue.

The lawsuits claim the trustees disregarded their duties toprotect investors despite knowing that the trusts held a largenumber of loans that did not meet their contractual obligations.The trustees were aware of an "industrywide abandonment ofunderwriting guidelines" for the loans and "pervasive and systemicdeficiencies infecting the trusts' collateral," as the complaintagainst Citibank says.

Banks have paid billions of dollars in lawsuits and settlementssince being accused of packaging shoddy mortgages into securitiesthat helped lead to the financial crisis.

The bonds at issue have not been included in similar casesincluding an $8.5 billion accord between investors and Bank ofAmerica Corp. and a $4.5 billion deal between investors andJPMorgan Chase & Co. over mortgage-backed securities, the personfamiliar with the lawsuits said.

In addition to BlackRock and Pimco, the lawsuits were filed onbehalf of Charles Schwab Co, DZ Bank AG and other institutionalinvestors.

The cases were filed on behalf of the investors by BernsteinLitowitz Berger & Grossmann.

Mr. Conde notes that the Company manufactures, markets and sellsits Nitrix product as an "Advance Strength" "Dietary Supplement"and advertises that the product contains the chemical compoundArginine Ethyl Esther. He alleges that based upon a recentlaboratory analysis, the Nitrix product contains no detectableamount of Arginine Ethyl Esther and, therefore, the Company hasmisrepresented what ingredients are actually present in Nitrix.

BIOZOOM INC: Peiffer Rosca Law Firm Files Investor Class Action---------------------------------------------------------------The Peiffer Rosca law firm on June 11 disclosed that it has fileda class action on behalf of certain investors who have purchasedthe common stock of Biozoom, Inc. between May 16, 2013 and June25, 2013, inclusive.

The Peiffer Rosca lawyers have been investigating the Biozoomalleged "pump-and-dump" scheme on behalf of BIZM investors and arepreparing to join additional defendants to the class action theyfiled. The Peiffer Rosca law firm has launched a website withinformation about the Biozoom class action it filed:www.biozoomclassaction.com

Biozoom investors who have purchased their Biozoom shares from thenamed defendant between May 16, 2013 and June 24, 2013 may seekappointment as lead plaintiff by the Court, by no later thanJuly 21, 2014.

Investors' share of any recovery in the Biozoom class action filedby the Peiffer Rosca law firm will not be affected by theirdecision regarding seeking appointment as lead plaintiff.Investors may retain the Peiffer Rosca law firm, which has filedthis class action, or other counsel of their choice.

To learn more about the class action filed by the Peiffer Roscalaw firm on behalf of certain Biozoom investors, please emailAlan Rosca at arosca@praclawfirm.com or call the Peiffer Rosca lawfirm toll-free at 888-998-0520.

Biozoom Lawsuit Filed by the Peiffer Rosca Law Firm: CaseInformation

The Biozoom class action filed by the Peiffer Rosca law firm onbehalf of certain Biozoom investors seeks to hold the defendantliable for alleged violations of certain provisions of theSecurities Act of 1933, in connection with the sales of BIZMshares to investors. The Biozoom shares were the object of analleged pump-and-dump scheme between May-June 2013.

About Peiffer Rosca Law Firm

The Peiffer, Rosca, Abdullah, Carr & Kane, LLC law firm, withoffices in New Orleans, Cleveland, and New York state, representsinvestors who lose their savings as a result of investment-relatedfraud or misconduct. The firm has represented investors acrossthe country who lost money in fraudulent investment schemes, Ponzischemes, or because of misconduct by financial industry members.

BRIDGETON LANDFILL: Opt-In Deadline Extended to July 18-------------------------------------------------------Joe Harris, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that afederal judge extended the opt-in deadline for neighbors of alandfill who were exposed to noxious odors to join a class actionsettlement, and clarified that joining the agreement does not waverights to sue if contamination continues.

More than 600 neighbors of the Bridgeton Landfill, a subsidiary ofRepublic Services, filed a class action in October 2013. Anunderground fire at the defunct landfill was reported more thanthree years ago. The fire brought noxious odors to neighboringhomes and businesses, with concerns about the fire's proximity toradioactive waste at the adjacent West Lake Landfill, also ownedby Republic Services.

Bridgeton is a suburb of St. Louis.

In April, Republic entered into a $6.8 million settlement tocompensate the neighbors for lost property value due to the odors.

U.S. District Judge Thomas C. Mummert III granted motions amendingthe settlement on June 13. Mummert's ruling reserves the rightfor residents to sue Republic later for any radiation exposure.Residents are concerned that the underground fire could spread tothe West Lake Landfill, which has radioactive waste. Elevatedlevels of benzene were detected along West Lake's perimeter onJune 1, drawing the ire of the Missouri attorney general.

Mummert also extended the deadline to opt in to July 18.

"The judge's order provides a welcomed clarification for ourclients and allows them more time to make a decision," said TedGianaris, a lawyer for The Simmons Law Firm, who represents theresidents, in a statement. "All class members, even those who mayhave previously opted out or objected to the lawsuit, may stillparticipate in the settlement."

Both sides consented to the amendments.

"The addendum gives class members the assurance they deserve,"Gianaris said in the statement. "If folks are sick or lose valuedue to radiation contamination, their legal rights will still beintact."

Bridgeton, pop. 11,630, is next to Lambert International Airportin northwest St. Louis County.

BUSINESS DELIVERY: "Fletcher" Class Suit Removed to N.D. Texas--------------------------------------------------------------Defendant GE Healthcare, Inc., removed the class action lawsuitcaptioned Fletcher v. Business Delivery Systems Inc., et al., CaseNo. DC-14-05251, from the 44th-B Judicial District Court, DallasCounty, Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the NorthernDistrict of Texas in Dallas. The District Court Clerk assignedCase No. 3:14-cv-02229-P to the proceeding.

In his Petition, Milton Fletcher pleads various causes of action,including one for an alleged violation of federal law under theFair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

In its notice of removal, GE stated that it was improperly namedin the Plaintiff's Petition and Jury Demand as "GE Healthcare,Inc." GE contends that there is no known entity; the properentity should be named as "Medi-Physics, Inc. dba GE Healthcare,Inc."

CEDAR FAIR: Still Faces Suit Over Park Employee Check-Out Process-----------------------------------------------------------------Cedar Fair, L.P. continues to face a class action lawsuit filed byFrank Ortegon-Ramirez in California state court, claiming damagesand injunctive relief for claims related to pay practicesapplicable to the check-out process for park employees whenleaving work in certain California locations, according to thecompany's May 29, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission.

On May 29, 2014, Cedar Fair, L.P. ("Cedar Fair") issued a newsrelease announcing that it, together with its wholly ownedsubsidiaries Magnum Management Corporation ("Magnum") and Canada'sWonderland Company ("Cedar Canada"), intends to commence a privateoffering of $450 million aggregate principal amount of seniorunsecured notes due 2024 (the "Notes") for issuance in a privateplacement, not registered under the Securities Act of 1933, asamended. Additionally, Cedar Fair disclosed a class action lawsuitfiled by Frank Ortegon-Ramirez in California state court againstCedar Fair, L.P. and Cedar Fair Management, Inc. for damages andinjunctive relief for claims related to pay practices applicableto the check-out process for park employees when leaving work incertain California locations. The defendants filed their answer onNovember 21, 2013 denying the allegations in the complaint andrequesting a dismissal of all claims. The class has not beencertified and Cedar Fair and Cedar Fair Management, Inc. believethey have substantial procedural and substantive defenses to theasserted claims and class certification, and they intend tovigorously defend against these claims.

CITIBANK NA: Judge Rejects Arbitration Bid in Miles Reward Suit---------------------------------------------------------------Bertram Hirsch and Igor Romonav sued Citibank, N.A., in anationwide class action in the United States District Court,Southern District of New York, charging that the bank wrongfullyreported to the IRS that customers had received income as a resultof accepting American Airlines miles reward offers for opening upcertain Citibank accounts. United States Federal Judge Deborah A.Batts is presiding over the case. The plaintiffs allege thatCitibank failed to disclose that it would report receipt ofairline miles to the IRS. In addition, they allege that Citibankfailed to disclose they would report the value of the airlinemiles received at 150% more than the actual value of the airlinemiles.

Citibank moved to stay the class action and compel arbitration,claiming that plaintiffs entered into a contract with Citibank,when they opened up their accounts, which contained a provisionrequiring all disputes to go to mandatory binding arbitration ifany party so elected, and contained clauses which voidedcustomers' rights to a jury trial and to participate in a classaction.

On March 28, 2013, Judge Batts denied Citibank's motion to compel,finding that there was no evidence before her to show that therewas a meeting of the minds. Citibank appealed Judge Batts'decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, where the SecondCircuit Court requested, among other things, that Judge Battsoversee a trial to determine if the parties entered into a bindingarbitration agreement.

After reviewing extensive discovery, including witness testimonybefore Judge Batts, depositions in New York and Los Angeles,California, and document discovery, Judge Batts found that theplaintiffs did not agree to arbitration.

The case is being prosecuted by James C. Kelly, from The LawOffice of James C. Kelly, and Samuel P. Sporn, from Schoengold &Sporn, P.C.

The class action against Citibank is now entering discoveryconcerning the merits of plaintiffs' allegation, which Judge Battsordered to be completed by October 31, 2014. Plaintiffs'attorneys will announce updates as the lawsuit continues.

If you have any information or questions you can contact James C.Kelly or Samuel Sporn at jkelly@jckellylaw.com orsporn@spornlaw.com

In November of 2013, a 60% majority of Lafayette voters assertedtheir right to local, community self-government by enacting theCommunity Rights Amendment. The Community Rights Amendmentprotects Lafayette residents' health, safety and welfare byenumerating certain fundamental rights and prohibiting harmfulactivities, such as fracking. It is the position of the Lafayettecitizens that the oil and gas industry, aided by GovernorHickenlooper and the State of Colorado, interferes with thefundamental rights described in, and protected by, the CharterAmendment, and guaranteed by the Colorado and United StatesConstitutions.

Following the passage of the Lafayette Community Rights Amendment,the Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA), sued the City ofLafayette, claiming that a State law -- the Colorado Oil and GasAct -- trumps the people's right to self-determination and toprotect themselves from oil and gas activities impacting theirlocal community. East Boulder County United, the localorganization that wrote and successfully campaigned for theLafayette Community Rights Charter Amendment, attempted to joinCOGA's lawsuit. But, the court refused to allow East BoulderCounty United to participate because, it said, the group'sarguments about people's fundamental rights would expand the scopeof the case.

Long-time Lafayette resident, East Boulder County United member,and named plaintiff Ann Griffin stated, "I stand with the peopleof Lafayette who voiced their support for this charter amendmentby an overwhelming majority. What is democracy without thisvoice? Our rights are inalienable, and not up for negotiation byany Governor, Congressman or corporation."

Ms. Griffin worked on the campaign for the Charter Amendment'senactment, and currently enjoys its provisions, detailing herright to clean air and water, to self-determination, and to befree from chemical trespass. In a city that neighbors thethousands of oil and gas wells in Weld County, the CommunityRights Charter Amendment stands between a massiveindustrialization of her community and the preservation of qualityof life and public safety.

This suit enforces Lafayette residents' fundamental rights, whichare being directly threatened by the Colorado Oil and GasAssociation, said the other named plaintiff Cliff Willmeng, who isalso a Registered Nurse, Lafayette resident, and father of two.

The new class action lawsuit comes on the heels of the ColoradoSupreme Court's decision to give the green light to ballotinitiative No. 75, the Colorado Community Rights Amendment, forsignature gathering.

According to initiative proponents, which include ColoradoCommunity Rights Network and East Boulder County United, ballotinitiative No. 75 will clarify that Colorado communities have theright to local self-government and the authority to protectpeople's fundamental rights from corporate interference.Proponents are working to gather over 86,000 signatures to ensurethe initiative's placement on the November ballot.

According to the filing, the rail company says the plaintiffs donot have personal or property injuries, just a "temporaryinconvenience due to the temporary bridge outage."

The motion argues the plaintiffs have not shown enough evidence tosupport their claim.

But CSX says it has already accepted fault and made plans to payfor the full cost of repairing the bridge.

A month ago, a train derailment knocked out the small bridge thatDepartment of Transportation records show is traveled by 6,200cars every year. The outage resulted in a 22-mile detour aroundthe area, which in turn caused traffic back-ups in other areas inthe county. In some instances, people reported their travel timeto and from work more than doubled.

The Department of Transportation recently announced it had awardeda $3 million contract to a Wando-based contractor to rebuild thebridge by the end of October.

U.S. District Judge Christina Reiss granted in part and denied inpart the defendants' motion for summary judgment in the suit,which was brought by dairy farmers over DFA and DMS' allegedconspiracy with major food companies to drive down prices in theNortheast. The judge rejected defendants' argument thatplaintiffs cannot establish a relevant geographic market, whichwould have meant an end to plaintiffs' antitrust claims.

"Plaintiffs may present evidence to the jury in support of Order Ias a relevant geographic market," Judge Reiss wrote in the 45-pagedecision. "They may not, however, present to the jury a marketdefinition of Order 1 that requires a dairy farmer to bephysically located within Order 1's geographic boundaries in orderto be considered a supplier of milk to that market."

The judge further refused to toss the plaintiffs' claims that thedefendants violated the Sherman Act by engaging in an attemptedmonopsony of raw Grade A milk in Order 1 and that they alreadypossess the monopsony power, but Judge Reiss dismissed theplaintiffs' price-fixing claim in Count 4 of the complaint. In amonopsony, many sellers face a dominant buyer who can manipulateprices by asserting its outsized control on demand.

The June 11 ruling in the most recent development in the long-running case, in which the judge said isolating the undisputedfacts is "no easy task." In November 2012, Judge Reiss grantedthe farmers class certification in the suit.

That order certified two subclasses of Northeast farmers whoproduced raw Grade A milk from Jan. 1, 2002, to the present. Onegroup is made up of members of DFA, while the other is made up ofproducers outside the cooperative.

The dairy farmers first filed their case in October 2009, claimingDFA, Dean Foods Co. and DFA affiliate DMS conspired withnondefendant companies like Kraft Foods Inc. and Land O'Lakes Inc.to stifle competition in the supply and purchase of raw Grade Amilk in the Northeast.

The defendants' conspiratorial conduct created a monopsony in thepurchase of milk from farmers in the region, and the restraints oncompetition translated to windfalls for the defendants andco-conspirators that came at the expense of farmers, according tothe suit.

Dean Foods reached its own $30 million settlement to exit the casein May 2011.

Dole represents that its products are "All Natural, which they arenot because the Dole Fruit Products contain citric acid andascorbic acid, Mr. Kinney alleges. He contends that using theterms is illegal to describe products, which contain unnaturalingredients under Arkansas law.

Dole Packaged Foods, LLC is a California limited liability companydoing business in the state of Arkansas with its principal placeof business in Westlake Village, California. Dole is a leadingproducer of retail food products, including the Dole FruitProducts. The Company sells its food products to consumersthrough grocery and other retail stores throughout the State ofArkansas.

ELECTROLUX: Dec. 15 Settlement Claim Form Submission Deadline Set-----------------------------------------------------------------If you purchased or currently own a clothes dryer manufactured byElectrolux (includes Frigidaire) between January 1, 2002, andDecember 31, 2011, you could get benefits from a class actionsettlement.

A Settlement has been reached with Electrolux Home Products, Inc.about whether the company manufactured freestanding clothes dryersthat contain a defect which may cause lint to build up and catchfire. Electrolux denies all of the claims in the lawsuit andmaintains that its dryers are not defective. The Court has notdecided who is right. Instead, both parties have agreed to settlethe case. This is only a summary of your legal rights. For moreinformation, visit www.DryerSettlement.com

What is the class action about? The lawsuit claims that the Dryerscontain defects that can cause them to catch on firedue to a buildup of lint inside them. The lawsuit further claimsthat Electrolux breached warranties, was negligent, violatedvarious state consumer protection statutes and unlawfully profitedfrom the sale of the Dryers. Electrolux denies that thereis any defect in its Dryers or that the Dryers pose anyunreasonable fire hazard to consumers. Electrolux also deniesthat it violated any law or engaged in any wrongdoing.

Who is included in the Settlement? Electrolux's records show thatyou may be a member of the Settlement Class. The "SettlementClass" or "Class Members" include all U.S. residents who, forpersonal or household use, purchased or currently own aFrigidaire, Kenmore, White Westinghouse, Kelvinator, Gibson,Crosley, or Tappan-brand "ball-hitch" freestanding clothes dryermanufactured by Electrolux in Webster City, Iowa, betweenJanuary 1, 2002 and December 31, 2011 (these types of dryers haveserial numbers beginning with "XD," and can be identified by thedesign of the Dryers' drum -- go to www.DryerSettlement.com to seeif you have one of these Dryers). The Settlement also includestwo smaller Settlement Subclasses consisting of Class Members who(a) have experienced a Dryer fire, or (b) experience a Dryer firein the future.

What does the Settlement provide? The Settlement provides avariety of benefits including free dryer cleaning servicesto remove lint build-up in the Dryers that may cause fires, up to$1,300 in cash reimbursements for past or future dryerfires, a rebate of up to $350 off the purchase of a new Frigidaireor Electrolux brand clothes dryer (which do not containthe alleged defects) or home appliance, and up to $350 off thepurchase of new products from www.ElectroluxAppliances.comElectrolux will not cap or limit the benefits available under thisSettlement. The Settlement also requires Electrolux to publish acustomer safety notice informing customers and Settlement ClassMembers that lint in dryers may build up and increase the risk offires. The Settlement does not require you to release anypersonal injury or property damage claims, other than damage tothe Dryer itself, you have against Electrolux.

How do you ask for benefits? You must complete and submit a ClaimForm with any required documents by December 15, 2014. You cancomplete and submit your Claim Form online atwww.DryerSettlement.com or print one from the website and mail itto the address on the form. Claim Forms are also available bycalling 1-888-541-4923, sending an email toAdministrator@DryerSettlement.com or writing to the ElectroluxDryer Settlement Administrator.

Your other options in this Settlement. If you do nothing, yourrights will be affected and you will not get any settlementbenefits beyond receiving Electrolux's customer safety notice. Ifyou do not want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you mustexclude yourself from it by sending a letter to the ElectroluxDryer Settlement Administrator by July 28, 2014. Unless youexclude yourself, you will not be able to sue or continue to sueElectrolux for any claim resolved by the Settlement or released bythe Settlement Agreement. If you exclude yourself, you cannot getany benefits from the Settlement. If you stay in the Settlement(i.e., don't exclude yourself), you may object to it by July 28,2014 by filing a written objection with the Court, Class Counsel,and Defense Counsel.

The Court's Fairness Hearing. The U.S. District Court for theCentral District of California, located at 312 North SpringStreet, Los Angeles, California 90012, will hold a hearing in thiscase (Roberts v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., CaseNo. SACV12-1644-CAS(VBKx)) on August 18, 2014, at 10:00 a.m. PDTin Courtroom 5. At the fairness hearing the Court will decidewhether to approve: (1) the Settlement; (2) Class Counsel'srequest for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of costs-- which will include at least $583,000 in costs incurred to-dateand that continue to accrue, and the total amount of fees andcosts requested will not exceed $8,000,000; and (3) incentiveawards of $3,000 to each of the five Class Representatives. Ifapproved, these fees, expenses and awards will be paid separatelyby Electrolux and will not reduce the benefits available to ClassMembers. You may appear at the hearing, but you do not have to.You may also hire your own attorney, at your own expense, toappear or speak for you at the hearing.

More information. For more information, including specificinformation on the proposed Settlement, filing a claim,excluding yourself, or filing objections, visitwww.DryerSettlement.com send an email toAdministrator@DryerSettlement.com or write to Electrolux DryerSettlement Administrator, PO Box 43268, Providence,RI 02940-3268 or Class Counsel at 55 West Monroe Street,Suite 3300, Chicago, IL 60603 or call 1-888-541-4923.

Do not contact the Court, Electrolux, or any appliance retailer ordealer for information about the Settlement.

FAIRWAY GROUP: Faces FLSA Violations Lawsuit in N.Y. Court----------------------------------------------------------Fairway Group Holdings Corp. faces a purported wage and hour classaction lawsuit in the United States District Court for theSouthern District of New York, according to the company's May 29,2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the fiscal year ended March 30, 2014.

In May 2014, a purported wage and hour class action lawsuit wasfiled in the United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York against the company and certain of thecompany's current and former officers and employees. This suitalleges, among other things, that certain of the company's pastand current employees were not properly compensated in accordancewith the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

FAIRWAY GROUP: Still Faces Securities Lawsuits in New York Court----------------------------------------------------------------Fairway Group Holdings Corp. continues face securities lawsuits inthe United States District Court for the Southern District of NewYork, according to the company's May 29, 2014, Form 10-Q filingwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterended March 31, 2014.

In February and March 2014, three purported class action lawsuitsalleging violation of the federal securities laws were filed inthe United States District Court for the Southern District of NewYork against the company and certain of the company's current andformer officers, certain of the company's directors and theunderwriters for the company's initial public offering. The suitsassert claims for allegedly misleading statements in theregistration statement for the company's initial public offeringand in subsequent communications regarding the company's businessand financial results.

In April 2014, a purported stockholder derivative action was filedagainst certain of the company's directors in New York state courtasserting claims for breach of fiduciary duties and grossmismanagement arising from substantially similar allegations as inthe securities class actions.

FOREST LABORATORIES: Has Settlement in Suit Over Actavis Sale-------------------------------------------------------------Forest Laboratories, Inc. reached an agreement in principle tosettle two lawsuits in Delaware and New York Action over its saletransaction with Actavis plc, according to Forest's May 29, 2014,Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionfor the quarter ended March 31, 2014.

As disclosed at page 137 of the definitive joint proxystatement/prospectus dated May 5, 2014 (the "Definitive JointProxy Statement/Prospectus") under the heading "LitigationRelating to the Transaction," certain actions have been filed byputative stockholders of Forest Laboratories, Inc. "Forest")alleging that the members of the Forest board of directorsbreached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell Forest forinadequate consideration and pursuant to an inadequate process,and that Actavis plc ("Actavis"), Tango U.S. Holdings Inc., TangoMerger Sub 1 LLC, and Tango Merger Sub 2 LLC aided and abettedthese alleged breaches. As disclosed in the Definitive Joint ProxyStatement/Prospectus, these actions include purported consolidatedstockholder class actions in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the"Delaware Action") and in the Supreme Court of the State of NewYork (the "New York Action," together with the Delaware Action,the "Actions").

On May 28, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in principlewith plaintiffs in the Delaware Action and the New York Actionregarding a settlement of both Actions, and that agreement isreflected in a memorandum of understanding. In connection with thesettlement contemplated by the memorandum of understanding, Forestagreed to make certain additional disclosures related to theproposed transaction with Actavis, which are contained in the Form8-K. The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the partieswill enter into a stipulation of settlement.The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customaryconditions, including court approval. In the event that theparties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will bescheduled at which the Court of Chancery will consider thefairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. If thesettlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve andrelease all claims in all actions that were or could have beenbrought challenging any aspect of the proposed transaction, themerger agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith,including in the Definitive Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus,pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to stockholders prior tofinal approval of the settlement. In addition, in connection withthe settlement, the parties contemplate that the parties shallnegotiate in good faith regarding the amount of attorneys' feesand expenses that shall be paid to plaintiffs' counsel inconnection with the Actions. There can be no assurance that theparties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement orthat the Court of Chancery will approve the settlement even if theparties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, theproposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum ofunderstanding may be terminated.

Supplement to Definitive Proxy Statement

In connection with the settlement of certain outstandingstockholder suits as described in the Form 8-K, Forest has agreedto make these supplemental disclosures to the Definitive JointProxy Statement/Prospectus dated May 5, 2014. This supplementalinformation should be read in conjunction with the DefinitiveJoint Proxy Statement/Prospectus, which should be read in itsentirety.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the U.S. Departmentof Justice charged the bank with deceptively marketing credit cardadd-on products that provided debt cancellation in the event ofcertain hardships, and discriminating against Hispanic customersby refusing to extend special offers to people who lived in PuertoRico or preferred to communicate in Spanish.

"This kind of conduct has no place in the consumer marketplace,"CFPB Director Richard Cordray told reporters on a conference call."No one should be excluded from credit opportunities simplybecause of where they live or the language they speak."

Jocelyn Samuels, the acting head of DOJ's Civil Rights Divisionadded, "The blatant discrimination that occurred here is unlawfuland will not be tolerated."

Synchrony, which until June 2 was known as GE Capital, in astatement said that it self-identified the discriminatory practiceand took corrective actions. "The bank regrets this error. Itspriority is treating customers fairly and when issues areidentified, it is committed to making it right. The CFPBrecognized the bank's response to this matter as 'responsiblebusiness conduct,' including the 'self-identification of thematter through self-policing, prompt reporting, self-initiation ofconsumer remediation, and full and timely cooperation withregulators.'"

According to the government, GE Capital offered five debtcancellation add-on products, which let consumers off the hook fora portion of their credit card balance in the event of certainhardships such as involuntary unemployment or disability. Buttelemarketers wrongly led consumers to believe that they would nothave to pay for the add-on products so long as they paid off theirbalances, and they also sold the add-ons to people who wereineligible.

The CFPB uncovered the practices when it examined GE in December2012. The consent decree calls for GE to refund $56 million to638,000 consumers, and to pay a $3.5 million penalty.

GE had special promotions that allowed consumers with delinquentaccounts to settle their balances by paying off part of theirdebt, but did not extend the offer to eligible Hispanic customers.The settlement, which is subject to court approval, calls for GEto provide $169 million in relief.

The CFPB has brought a series of cases against credit card issuersfor deceptive marketing. In 2012, Discover Financial Servicespaid $214 million and Capital One Bank paid $210 million to settleCFPB charges of deceptively marketing credit card add-on services.

GENERAL MOTORS: 2007 Report Shows Evidence of Ignition Defect-------------------------------------------------------------Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reportsthat when forensics expert Erin Shipp began looking into the causeof an accident in West Virginia involving a 2005 Chevy Cobalt, sheturned to an obvious source: The U.S. National Highway TrafficSafety Administration. On its website, she found a 2007 researchreport concluding that, in a similar crash in Wisconsin, theignition switch might have disabled the airbags. Ms. Shipp, hiredby the plaintiffs attorney in a lawsuit, thought the same thingmight have happened in her case.

To her surprise, General Motors Co.'s attorneys, when informed ofher finding, appeared to have been caught completely off guard.They quickly settled the case.

"My hope was maybe this will have a little impact on them,"Ms. Shipp said. "But I didn't realize at all what sort of animpact it did create."

The case is one of about a dozen that led GM's lawyers to realizethey had a serious problem with the ignition switch -- the subjectof recalls totaling 2.6 million vehicles this year, according to aJune 5 internal report conducted for the automaker by Jenner &Block chairman Anton Valukas. The defects, which can shut downengines, disabling airbags, power steering and other electricalsystems, have been linked to 13 deaths and dozens of crashes. OnJune 16, GM recalled another 3.36 million vehicles over similarignition problems.

Plaintiffs lawyers claiming to represent hundreds of victims areskeptical of GM's 315-page report, which concluded that topofficials were unaware of the defect and blamed the problems onincompetence by many of its employees. Mr. Valukas and chiefexecutive officer Mary Barra were expected to appear on CapitolHill on June 18 to discuss the report's findings.

The first cases

According to the Valukas report, neither Ms. Barra nor generalcounsel Michael Millikin knew about the first lawsuits thatemerged over disabled airbags, later linked to the ignitiondefect. In fact, senior product liability attorney William Kemp,the liaison between GM's legal staff and engineers, couldn'texplain why he didn't tell Mr. Millikin about the problem untilearlier this year. Mr. Kemp is among 15 people GM has sincefired.

In 2003, according to the Valukas report, GM's engineers beganlooking into complaints from customers about ignitions turning off-- although they failed to realize that such a stall would disablean airbag. GM's lawyers, meanwhile, faced lawsuits over accidentsin which airbags didn't go off.

"These accidents," he said, "are important evidence of knowledgeat very high levels of the company."

Regarding the first two lawsuits cited in the report, GM concludedthat the airbags wouldn't have deployed based on the nature of theaccidents. But in a third case, the airbags should have worked.That involved a July 4, 2004, crash by a 2004 Saturn Ion. Thedriver's name is redacted in the report, but Shara Lynn Towne, oneof the 13 deaths GM has linked to its ignition-switch defect, diedfrom a crash the same day in the same make and model vehicle inVisalia, Calif.

During a 2006 internal meeting about the case, a GM attorney saidthat engineers had "no solid technical explanation" for why theairbags didn't deploy. The case settled.

Ms. Towne's attorney, Brian Chase, did not return a call forcomment. But on his firm's website, he called Ms. Towne "thefirst known victim" of the ignition-switch defect. "GM knew ofthis defect back then and yet made a decision to quietly settleout of court so there would be no media or government attention,"wrote Chase of Bisnar Chase in Newport Beach, Calif.

In 2007, GM's outside counsel submitted an evaluation of a crashinvolving a 2004 Saturn Ion on Nov. 15, 2004. Again, the nameswere redacted, but Gene Mikale Erickson, who died on that date ina 2004 Saturn Ion, is one of the 13 known deaths. Mr. Ericksondied when his girlfriend, who was driving, slid off a road ineastern Texas, slamming into a tree. The airbags didn't go off.Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer, GM's outside counsel in Dallas,called the crash "unusual."

"That's code for 'You're fucked,' " said Robert Hilliard ofHilliard Munoz Gonzales in Corpus Christi, who now representsMr. Erickson's family and the girlfriend, Candice Anderson, in anew lawsuit they filed on June 9.

In its evaluation, Hartline Dacus attributed the airbag failure tosome kind of power loss but concluded "a jury will find that thevehicle was defective." The case settled in 2008.

Hartline Dacus partner Darrell Barger did not respond to a requestfor comment. Another lawyer who represented GM in the case, J.Karl Viehman, managing partner of Minneapolis-based Bowman andBrooke, referred requests for comment to GM.

GM spokesman Greg Martin declined to comment for this story.

Warning: punitive damages

By 2009, GM's outside lawyers, faced with a string of accidents,began to raise the prospect that the company faced substantialpunitive damages.

King & Spalding's evaluation of a case arising from the Dec. 31,2009, crash of a 2006 Chevy Cobalt was the first to warn GM that ajury might award such damages, according to the Valukas report.The report doesn't give the name of the victim, but SeydeChansuthus, one of the 13 people known to have died in anignition-related crash, was killed on the same day in her 2006Cobalt.

During a 2010 evaluation of the case, King & Spalding cited a"sensing anomaly" in the vehicle, according to the Valukas report,that "could provide fertile ground . . . for an award of punitivedamages, resulting in a significantly larger verdict."

GM settled the case in 2011. Atlanta's Butler, Wooten & Fryhofer,which represented the Chansuthus family, did not respond to arequest for comment.

GM's outside counsel in that case, Harold Franklin, a partner atAtlanta's King & Spalding, did not respond to a request forcomment. Les Zuke, a spokesman for King & Spalding, referredrequests for comment to GM. (King & Spalding also assisted in theValukas report.)

Then the West Virginia case was filed. The victim, an injuredpassenger, wasn't identified in the Valukas report, but theDec. 13, 2009, crash involved a 2005 Chevy Cobalt that slid onblack ice, swerving off the road and into a tree.

"My initial impression was, gee, it looks like they were goingfast enough, they should have gotten air bags in this," saidMs. Shipp, an associate specializing in vehicle engineering atRobson Forensic Inc. in Lancaster, Pa.

The 2007 report she discovered, commissioned by the NationalHighway Traffic Safety Administration and conducted by IndianaUniversity's Transportation Research Center, concluded that theignition switch in the Wisconsin crash had stuck in the accessoryposition, possibly preventing the airbags from deploying. Thecrash killed two passengers and injured the driver.

Ms. Shipp cited the report in coming to the same conclusion in theWest Virginia case. "I didn't realize what I found was anythingunique," she said. "It was all in the public record."

But nobody at GM -- engineers or lawyers -- knew about theresearch, even though they were aware of the Wisconsin crash,according to the Valukas report. GM's lawyers at Eckert SeamansCherin & Mellott warned that the automaker could face punitivedamages at trial. Edward Gray, co-chairman of Eckert's productsliability group, who handled the case, did not respond to arequest for comment.

Even after learning of the research, GM's engineers didn't acceptthe findings until more than a year later -- after the plaintiffsattorney in another case involving a 2005 Cobalt dropped a"bombshell" during the deposition of one of its engineers.

Although the victim's name was redacted, the case presentsidentical facts and circumstances as one filed on behalf ofBrooke Melton, who died on March 10, 2010. That case is largelycredited with prompting GM's recalls.

Mr. Kemp told GM's investigators that it is "always disappointingwhen someone outside the company knows more about your productthan you do." But not everyone believes GM's story.

"GM is very sophisticated in trolling for their own accidents andgetting there first and collecting the information," saidHilliard, who filed a lawsuit against GM on March 21 on behalf ofthe victims of the Wisconsin crash. "How possibly can the samecompany say they did not know NHTSA found out about an accident?That's like a blind hog finding an acorn."

GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 3 Million Cars Over Ignition Switch Issues------------------------------------------------------------------Reuters reports that General Motors Co. recalled three millionmore cars for ignition switch issues on June 16, roughly doublingthe number of GM vehicles with known switch problems in a crisisthat has defined the automaker and new Chief Executive Mary Barrathis year.

GM on June 16 recalled 3.36 million midsize and fullsize carsglobally with ignition switches that can be jarred out of the"run" position, potentially affecting power steering, power brakesand air bags. The switch issue is similar to the defect linked toat least 13 deaths in an earlier, 2.6-million vehicle recall ofChevrolet Cobalts and other small cars.

GM engineers first noted the Cobalt problem more than a decadeago, and GM's slow response to the switch issue triggeredinvestigations within the company and by Congress and federalagencies.

"The recall is just sort of the tip of the iceberg in terms ofwhat has to be done" at GM, Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Democratfrom Connecticut and one of GM's more vocal critics in Congress,said after the June 16 recall.

GM said the engineer who designed the defective Cobalt switches,Ray DeGiorgio, also designed the switches on the latest batch ofrecalled cars. Mr. DeGiorgio was fired after the earlier recall.He could not be reached for comment.

GM has issued 44 recalls this year totaling about 20 millionvehicles worldwide, which is more than total annual U.S. vehiclesales. Of the recalls this year, nearly 6.5 million of thevehicles were recalled for ignition switch-related issues,including more than half a million Chevrolet Camaros on June 13.

The automaker raised a recall-related charge for the secondquarter to $700 million from $400 million. That takes GM's totalrecall-related charges this year to $2 billion.

Despite the rash of recalls this year, GM U.S. sales rose in Mayto the highest level since August 2008.

GM's high profile problem this year has catalyzed recalls at otherautomakers, said David Cole, chairman emeritus of the Center ofAutomotive Research in Ann Arbor. He described the recent flurryof activity as "recall spring."

"If it were unique to GM, I would say it is a much more seriousproblem," said Mr. Cole.

Clarence Ditlow, Executive Director Center for Auto Safety of theJune 13 recall, said GM could not afford to take a chance on notrecalling a car. "Their calculus has totally changed," he said.

GM said it was aware of eight crashes and six injuries related tothe latest recall, and that there were no fatalities. Theautomaker on June 16 said it would replace or rework ignition keysto eliminate a slot in the end of the key. The slot allows adangling key ring to slip to one side and pull the ignition keyout of run position.

"The use of a key with a hole, rather than a slotted key,addresses the concern of unintended key rotation due to a jarringroad event, such as striking a pothole or crossing railroadtracks," it said.

A spokesman said the ignition switches did not need to bereplaced, even though they were "slightly" below the companyspecification for torque -- the force needed to move the switchout of the run position.

The latest recall includes Buick LaCrosse, Chevrolet Impala,Cadillac DeVille and several other models, though only the Impalais currently in production. The cars cover model years 2000through 2014.

The June 16 recall comes two days before CEO Barra is due toreturn to Congress to testify about the earlier Cobalt recall.

Ms. Barra will be joined by Anton Valukas, chairman of GM'soutside law firm Jenner & Block, who conducted a months-longinvestigation that detailed deep flaws in GM's internal decision-making process.

The so-called Valukas report triggered the departures of 15 GMemployees, including several high-ranking executives in the legal,engineering and public policy groups, as well as Mr. DeGiorgio.

GM said Ms. Barra wants to update Congress on the actions thecompany has taken in response to the switch recall crisis,including fixing the failures outlined in the company's internalreport, announcing plans to establish a victims' compensation fundand setting up a structure at the company to ensure vehiclesafety.

The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, whichadministers vehicle recalls, said on June 16 that it would"monitor the pace and effectiveness" of the latest GM recall and"take necessary action as warranted."

GENERAL MOTORS: Legal Team Under Spotlight Over Recall Controversy------------------------------------------------------------------Sue Reisinger, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that thedeadly ignition switch fiasco at General Motors Co. has spawned aremarkable breadth of legal issues, ranging from the lawdepartment's role in recalls to the company's duty, if any, tocompensate victims after it declared bankruptcy. Indeed, seldomhas a legal department been thrust into such a high-profile rolein a huge public controversy.

The ignition switch debacle inevitably cast the legal team in aharsh light and led to the oft-repeated phrase: Where were thelawyers? Well, they were right here.

GM's legal department has had three different, and impressive,leaders since the defective switch was uncovered. Any one of themmight have led the company down a very different path, and perhapssaved lives along the way. But they didn't. Instead they allowedthe company to waste nearly 10 years. That's 10 years ofcommittee meetings and haggling and ignoring possible solutions.And 10 years of not issuing a recall while GM cars crashed andpeople died.

The recall delay appears unprecedented. Allan Kam, who spent 25years as an enforcement attorney with the National Highway TrafficSafety Administration (NHTSA) and now operates a consulting firmcalled Highway Traffic Safety Associates in Bethesda, says mostdelays involve a few months or maybe even a year. But a decade?Mr. Kam explained, "I've seen hundreds of safety defectinvestigations at NHTSA, and I can't say this is the most severedefect I've ever seen. But it is among the most severe delays inconducting a recall. A 10-year delay is extraordinary."

In Mr. Kam's mind there was no good reason for the delay. Afterrecently examining GM's filings with NHTSA, Mr. Kam said thecompany knew enough by 2004, or early 2005 at the latest, to knowit had a problem and should have issued a recall then. But itdidn't.

So now 13 people -- investigators suggest that number will rise --are dead, and hundreds are injured because of the defect. Theflaw involves a small, malfunctioning spring-like device inseveral models that lets the key fall back to an off or accessoryposition while the car is running. This switch-off can disableair bags, impair systems such as power brakes and steering, andstartle drivers, who sometimes crash. The ignition issue, and howit was mishandled, has nearly brought GM to its knees.

The company has suffered a massive blow to its reputation. Itfaces dozens of lawsuits carrying billions of dollars in potentialliability. GM conducted an internal investigation, and a reportwas released in early June. At least four in-house lawyers, one avice president, lost their jobs -- though not general counselMichael Millikin. No former or current GM lawyer responded torequests for comment for this story.

The Valukas report made several recommendations to reform how thelegal department works. The U.S. Department of Justice isconducting a criminal investigation, and several state attorneysgeneral were also investigating the matter. And Congress islooking into why the recall took so long. Since February thecompany has agreed to recall 2.6 million vehicles over the defectand to pay a $35 million settlement to NHTSA -- the maximum civilpenalty allowed by law.

At the heart of it all is a legal department of about 200attorneys who failed to communicate. And that's putting theirfailure in the best possible light. Some observers prefer thephrase "cover-up." At least one class action suit over the defectclearly points at the lawyers' role in not disclosing the truthduring GM's 2009 bankruptcy proceedings.

First the complaint offers a detailed timeline of GM actions,along with emails that show the company knew about the defect forover a decade. Then the complaint states that it is"inconceivable that individuals within GM's upper management andgeneral counsel's office did not know about the ignition switchdefect in GM vehicles, or the attendant contingent liabilities,when GM entered bankruptcy in June 2009."

Some U.S. senators were incredulous too. At a hearing in April,they voiced similar concerns about what the lawyers knew. Afterall, GM's attorneys worked on cases over the years involvingcrashes caused by the defective switch. But as GM chief executiveMary Barra tried to explain to the senators: "Within GM there weresilos, where information was known in one part of the business,for instance in the legal team, but was not communicated to theengineers."

GC Millikin has been taking the brunt of the scrutiny. But so farhe's not talking. One plaintiffs attorney, Robert Hilliard ofHilliard Munoz Gonzales in Corpus Christi, is trying to deposeMr. Millikin. Mr. Hilliard told The Detroit News in May: "As soonas I ask for GM to make its general counsel, Mr. Millikin,immediately available for deposition to get to the bottom of thiscover-up and to hopefully shed some light on the issue of whetherand for how long GM's legal department delayed immediate andforthright disclosure of the defect so as to buy more time tocircle the wagons, GM delays the litigation."

But Mr. Millikin wasn't the only legal chief to miss the problem.To fully understand decisions that GM made, it helps to review thethree general counsel during this time period and the legal andother issues flying around them. Mr. Millikin took over in 2009;the others are Thomas Gottschalk, who served from 1994 to 2007,and Robert Osborne, who had the job from 2006 to 2009, overlappingGottschalk's final months.

If early responsibility falls on any GC's shoulders, it isMr. Gottschalk's. He was in charge of the legal department whenthe pre-2007 decisions were made about how to handle the defect.The first ignition-related lawsuits hit in 2004 and 2005, bothinvolving cars in which air bags didn't deploy. If he did notknow about his lawyers' ensuing discussions -- which carried highlegal risk for the company -- then why didn't he?

His own policies, quoted in the internal report, stated thatlawyers were to inform him of such matters. The report doesn'tsay what precise questions Gottschalk was asked by the internalinvestigator, or even if he was asked if he knew about the deadlydefect at the time.

Tom Gottschalk's history with GM goes back to before he joined thecompany. While a litigation partner at Kirkland & Ellis inWashington, D.C., in the mid-1970s, Gottschalk served GM asoutside counsel. In that role he successfully defended theautomaker against several high-profile cases, includingallegations that it fixed prices in one action, and that itcovered up brake defects in another. GM was so taken with himthat it hired him as general counsel in 1994.

So Mr. Gottschalk was there for the great explosive gas tank legalbattle in the mid-90s. The truth came out only after GM sued theRalph Nader-founded Center for Auto Safety over the Center'sclaims that side-mounted gas tanks on GM trucks were dangerous andprone to explode on impact. The company denied there was aproblem, and there was no public record of any crash victims suingGM.

But the Center found out otherwise. In 1996 the Center obtainedthrough the court the names of 245 gas tank defect cases that hadbeen filed starting in 1973. And it later came out in 2003 thatGM had settled 297 gas tank cases for $495 million, demandingconfidentiality as part of the settlements.

It was the same legal strategy that GM's legal team would followin the ignition switch cases. And the same "safety" lawyer,William Kemp, was involved in both the gas tank and the faultyignition cases. Mr. Kemp, a 30-year GM veteran, was one of thein-house lawyers who was let go in early June.

Still, Mr. Gottschalk was always highly regarded in legal circles.He strived for diversity and a strong in-house pro bono program.In 1997 he convinced lawyers at Ford Motor Company and other localcompanies to join GM in forming a pro bono legal clinic to serveDetroit's poor. GM lawyers, including Gottschalk, voluntarilyhandled everything from wills to dog bites for clinic clients.Today he leads the pro bono program at Kirkland & Ellis, where heis of counsel.

Right after Mr. Gottschalk became GM's general counsel, he decidedto restructure its legal department. By creating a global lawdepartment, the GC arranged for in-house attorneys to report tohis office rather than to business leaders. As he told CorporateBoard Member magazine earlier this year, the change allowed hisattorneys "some professional independence within the company sothey could be objective legal advisers and counsel on risk and. . . not be overruled by nonlawyers."

In 2000 GM brought on a new CEO, Richard "Rick" Wagoner. Such aswitch can sometimes mean turmoil for a general counsel.Gottschalk navigated the change, however, and in May 2001 thecompany gave him a promotion and an additional title: executivevice president for law and policy.

But that same year, the first problems with the ignition switchwere noted, according to a document GM just filed in March withNHTSA. The document states that a 2001 preproduction report onthe Saturn Ion "addressed an issue relating to the ignitionswitch's 'passlock' system." The issue involved the same defectthat eventually led to the 2014 recalls.

And there were more red flags during Mr. Gottschalk's tenure. In2003 NHTSA received the first complaint about the defect. A yearlater GM opened its first inquiry into the ignition problem, whichit closed in early 2005 because "none of the solutions representsan acceptable business case," according to GM documents. Afterconsumer suits were filed and there were more field reports aboutvehicles losing power, an engineer proposed that GM redesign thekey. Though initially approved, GM admitted to NHTSA that theidea was later canceled. Still, neither GM nor NHTSA ordered arecall.

At the time GM labeled the problem one of "inconvenience" todrivers, and not a safety issue. With a safety issue, cost is nota determining factor. But the internal report explained that thefailure to understand that a stalling car might be a hazard meantthat the issue was put into a different category of problems --and cost was a relevant consideration for problems of mere"convenience."

And cost was on everyone's mind at the time. The company washemorrhaging money, suffering quarter after quarter ofmultimillion-dollar losses. In June of that year, Mr. Gottschalkpulled Mr. Millikin out of his role as coordinator of global legalservices and named him associate general counsel, presumablygrooming him for the top job.

Then, what is believed to be the first crash death related to theignition switch occurred in July 2005 in Maryland. Six monthslater, in December, the company issued a service bulletin todealers alerting them to a faulty ignition problem, but stilldidn't recall any vehicles.

What GM did do was delete a reference to "stalling" in theproposed service bulletin language. The report states thatemployee Steve Oakley, who drafted the language, explained that"the word 'stall' is a 'hot' word that GM generally does not usein bulletins because it may raise a concern about vehicle safety,which suggests GM should recall the vehicle, not issue abulletin."

Also the company had warned employees not to use sensitive wordsthat could be turned against them in later lawsuits. "A number ofGM employees reported that they did not take notes at all atcritical safety meetings because they believed GM lawyers did notwant such notes taken," the internal report notes.

Or perhaps the wording decision was related to cost. The companyposted a $4.8 billion loss in the fourth quarter of 2005, and a$10.6 billion loss for the entire year. By early 2006,shareholders were calling for CEO Rick Wagoner's head.Still more ignition complaints poured in. Seven sour quarterlyearnings were stated and later restated downward. The lossesgrew, and rumors of bankruptcy circulated. At one point the GMboard of directors called a secret meeting to talk about firingMr. Wagoner, according to a Wall Street Journal report, but heconfronted the directors and talked them out of the action.

Amid this raging firestorm, Gottschalk announced his pendingretirement. And during the turmoil, the GM design engineer whofirst approved the ignition switch -- which never met GM specs inthe first place -- quietly signed a form that authorized thesupplier to change the defective switch.

But that change wouldn't occur until later models in 2007. And henever told anyone at GM nor documented the change. The internalreport would blame his lack of communication for leaving othersstumbling in the dark for years as they searched for the defect'scause. The engineer was recently fired.

The general counsel's job was also storm-tossed. Mr. Gottschalkleft the role in September 2006, but stayed at GM under his othertitle as executive VP for law and policy until April 2007. Ratherthan promote Mr. Gottschalk's number two, Mr. Millikin, GM broughtin a short-term expert to restructure the company.

That expert was outside counsel Robert Osborne, who became GC inSeptember 2006. Mr. Osborne had worked for 23 years atMr. Gottschalk's old firm, Kirkland & Ellis, before joining Jenner& Block in 2002, where he chaired its corporate practice. He alsohad served for a time as general counsel to Lands' End Inc.

Considered a whiz at mergers, acquisitions and spinoffs,Mr. Osborne had represented GM in the 1995 sale of National CarRental, the later sale of Hughes Electronics, and various spinoffsand public offerings of stock and debt, according to the company.

His work was cut out for him. Osborne and the CEO were clearlyfocused on how to save the company in 2007, and probably not onproduct problems. At the same time, NHTSA officials cited 29 morecomplaints about the bad switches, four fatal crashes and 14 fieldreports. In addition, in 2007 GM learned of four more crasheswhen the engine turned off and air bags did not deploy, accordingto NHTSA documents. But still no one at GM or NHTSA insisted on arecall.

The following year things only got worse. While the ignitioncomplaints and crashes continued, NHTSA responded to one victim,"There is insufficient evidence to warrant opening a safety defectinvestigation." In addition, the global economic crisis of 2008doomed GM's financial health. Mr. Osborne, with Mr. Millikin'shelp, focused on planning for bankruptcy and receiving agovernment bailout. Meanwhile, others at GM still studied datafrom more crashes. In May of 2009 the company found that seven of14 crashes showed the ignition switch had jumped to the"accessory" position while the car was running.

But that fact may have been temporarily lost in the financialabyss. The company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy the followingmonth, June, citing nearly $173 billion of debt. Thanks to theplanning, the so-called New GM quickly exited bankruptcy in July.His main assignment over, Mr. Osborne left GM two months later andin 2010 became general counsel at consulting firm Booz AllenHamilton. Today he is retired but of counsel at Jenner & Block,and he writes a conservation blog.

So in mid-2009 Mr. Millikin finally took control of the post hewas groomed for. The former federal prosecutor had joined GM'slegal department in Detroit in 1977, and 10 years later becamehead of in-house litigation. In Gottschalk's restructuring,Mr. Millikin headed the global litigation practice. Two yearslater, in 1997, Gottschalk moved him to Zurich to be generalcounsel of GM's burgeoning international operations as well as GCof General Motors Europe. In an interview with Corporate Counselmagazine after returning to Detroit and becoming associate GC,Mr. Millikin fondly recalled his days abroad and shook his head inmock disbelief at his decision to return to Detroit.

Mr. Millikin had little time to celebrate his promotion to GC. Amonth after taking the job, the company underwent a series ofleadership shockwaves and revolving CEOs. First CEO Wagoner wasousted, to be replaced by the chief operating officer, FritzHenderson. That move lasted only a few months, when newly namedboard chairman Edward Whitacre Jr. shifted to the CEO post inDecember.

Though GM was finally seeing financial daylight, the year 2009ended dismally otherwise. Around the time Mr. Whitacre took overthe CEO role in December, a Chevy Cobalt crashed, killing itsoccupant when the air bags did not deploy. And 2010 brought moreturmoil. The lawsuits over crashes due to the defective switcheskept growing.

Outside the litigation efforts, the company wanted to pursue anIPO in 2010. Mr. Whitacre, unwilling to make a long-termcommitment to the CEO job that an IPO would require, felt he hadto step aside. So board member Daniel Akerson took the reins.

Mr. Akerson seemed to bring some stability. In 2011 the companywas making a solid profit, and the legal department began quietlysettling lawsuits over crashes due to defective switches.But there was a problem: The internal report states, "By 2011,outside counsel, privy to . . . engineers' data, had repeatedlywarned GM in-house counsel that GM could be accused of egregiousconduct due to its failure to address the problem of airbagnondeployment [due to faulty ignitions], and that such conductmight subject GM to liability, including punitive damages."So in July, GM called a meeting involving people from legal andtwo other departments to authorize a new probe into crashes. Butthe investigation, an analysis of its data, then more analyseswould continue for nearly three years. And there was still norecall.

Meanwhile GM was handling the ignition suits in a structured way.In-house product litigation attorneys had authority to settlecases up to $100,000, according to the internal report. Casesover $100,000 and up to $1.5 million required approval of acommittee called the Roundtable, which met weekly and was led bythe litigation practice area manager. All product litigationstaff attorneys were invited to attend and chime in.

Cases settling for $2 million to $5 million required approval of ahigher-level Settlement Review Committee, which met monthly andwas chaired by the head of global litigation. Members includedboth the general counsel for North America and Mr. Kemp, thesafety lawyer. Cases over $5 million required the approval of thegeneral counsel. No faulty ignition cases settled for that much,according to the report.

At both settlement committees, member attorneys would vote onoutcomes. But the committee chair was the ultimate decision-maker.Litigation manager Michael Gruskin chaired both committees frommid-2007 to March 2012. Lawrence Buonomo, who was also let golast week, replaced him beginning March 8, 2012. The report saidthe Roundtable considered an average of 3.4 cases per meeting in2012, and 3.76 in 2013. The Settlement Review Committee averaged1.4 cases in 2012 and 1.3 in 2013.

Then came the litigation "bombshell." In 2013, in one key caseinvolving a fatal crash, plaintiffs' attorneys learned of thesecretly replaced switch. King & Spalding attorney PhilipHolladay wrote an almost desperate letter saying, "This case needsto be settled . . . There is little doubt that a jury here willfind that the ignition switch used on [a certain] 2005 Cobalt wasdefective and unreasonably dangerous, and that it did not meetGM's own torque specifications."

Mr. Holladay's April 2013 letter said the plaintiffs' lawyer wouldcite the fact of "an investigation [of faulty switches] that hasnow been dragging on for almost two years as proof positive ofGM's conscience [sic] indifference and willful misconduct when itcomes to the safety of its vehicles' occupants."

But no one reportedly told the boss. The internal report says thatno GM lawyer "elevated Holladay's letter or specific issuesrelated to the case to general counsel Michael Millikin prior tothe settlement." So still there was no recall.

The revolving CEO door continued. Mr. Akerson retired in January2014, to be replaced by current CEO Mary Barra. Then in Februarythe engineers' analysis finally reached a conclusion, and GM beganthe first of what became a series of recalls. The action set offwhat became a chain reaction of government investigations andmedia scrutiny of why the recall took so long.

That's when GM and Mr. Millikin countered with their own internalinquiry. The company announced in March that Mr. Millikin andoutside counsel Anton Valukas of Jenner & Block would cohead theinternal investigation, with help from another law firm often usedby GM, King & Spalding. Both Jenner & Block and King & Spaldingwere longtime GM defense counsel. But critics claimed that theprobe needed independent leaders, not GM insiders. As Mr. Kam,the ex-NHTSA attorney, put it: "You sort of think they may be partof the problem, rather than part of the solution."

In a strategic move, Mr. Valukas brought in another firm tointerview Gottschalk and Osborne for the report. Mr. Osborne hadworked for Jenner & Block, the report explains, and GM wanted toavoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. A GM spokesmanrefused to identify the firm, but it is named in a footnote in thereport: defense law firm Cotsirilos, Tighe, Streicker, Poulos &Campbell of Chicago. Presumably Mr. Valukas saw no conflict inJenner & Block interviewing Mr. Millikin, who hires the law firm.The report also names only Mr. Valukas, and not Mr. Millikin, assole author.

Not surprisingly, critics have lambasted the 325-page Valukasreport. For example, it offers meticulous details about facts andevents that support the report's theory that GM was negligent butnot maliciously or criminally so. But it offers scant details onquestions like: What did Gottschalk and Osborne know, if anything,about the defect? Who did Buonomo and Kemp tell about thesettlement cases and what did they say? What was Lucy ClarkDougherty's role in the defect decisions, if any, when she wasNorth American GC, when Kemp and Buonomo reported to her?One senator called it "the best report money can buy." Theactivist Center for Auto Safety labeled it an "elaboratewhitewash." The Center mocked GM's contention that the ignitionswitch wasn't considered a safety issue. "Stalling has been thesubject of over 300 safety recalls," it said in a statement. "GMis certainly aware that stalling is a safety defect because itlitigated and lost the issue in a seminal case that establishedloss of vehicle power on the road as a safety defect" [in U.S. v.General Motors Corp., 1976].

GM disagreed. "Most people who read the report objectivelyconsider it thorough and brutally tough," company spokesman GregMartin told Corporate Counsel.

But some plaintiffs' attorneys, who asked not to be named becausethey are actively litigating GM cases, were also critical. Theycalled the report a clever defense strategy that tries to spin thestory. It creates a scripted "company line" for future GMwitnesses to follow in any investigations, they said, as it simplyblames poor communication and a lax culture that lacked urgency.

Now GM, Mr. Millikin and the legal department face an uncertainfuture. Auto industry gadfly Peter DeLorenzo, writing about therecall mess, said in an April blog post: "GM's legal staff needsto be blown up, starting with a regime change at the top and athorough purging of any and all who have enthusiastically takentheir marching orders from the current chief counsel."

Some media have speculated on whether Mr. Millikin will be ousted.But GM issued a statement saying the general counsel, who turns 66in August, has no plans to retire and will remain in his position.Elsewhere the U.S. bankruptcy court in Manhattan is consideringwhether some suits against GM over the defects should be removedfrom bankruptcy protection. Under terms of the 2009 bankruptcy,the so-called New GM (a new entity created by the bankruptcy) wasgiven protection against all liabilities that arose prior to thebankruptcy, including crashes due to defects.

But attorney Alexander Schmidt, who brought an action inbankruptcy court on behalf of eight plaintiffs, argued that GMknew, or should have known, about the massive potential forliabilities over the defect "and failed to disclose thatinformation to the court or other interested parties" during the2009 proceedings. Mr. Schmidt, of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman& Herz, told Corporate Counsel that GM "pulled the wool over theeyes of the government when it fraudulently induced the governmentto support it during bankruptcy."

Harry Wilson, an Obama administration adviser to the 2009 autotask force, confirmed the lack of knowledge. Mr. Wilson said inMay that the task force was unaware of the switch problems when itcrafted the $49.5 billion bailout for GM five years ago, accordingto a Detroit News story. The issue, Mr. Wilson said in thearticle, "sadly is emblematic of the cultural problems" at theautomaker.

Now GM says it's changed. And it's looking for a way tocompensate crash victims. It hired Kenneth Feinberg, the victimcompensation expert who administered the September 11 VictimCompensation Fund and One Fund Boston, arising out of the BostonMarathon bombings, to come up with a plan to address hundreds ofdamage claims filed against the automaker. The company, however,appears to continue fighting economic claims that seek loss ofvalue of defective vehicles, according to its bankruptcy courtfilings.

And then there are the ongoing multiple investigations. Bothhouses of Congress have held hearings on the recall delay andintend to hold more. In fact, Ms. Barra and Mr. Valukas appearedbefore the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Oversight andInvestigations subcommittee for further questioning on June 18.

Legal observers wonder how much information, beyond the report,Congress will demand. For example, in the Hewlett-Packard Companypretexting scandal in 2007, the lawmakers demanded and gotexecutives' emails and transcripts of internal investigativeinterviews, including with the general counsel. Will GM facesimilar demands?

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is looking into GM aswell. But perhaps most worrisome to the automaker is a criminalprobe by the Justice Department. Neither GM nor the DOJ willdiscuss it, but the investigation has been widely reported. Somegovernment officials already accused the company of committing acrime by not reporting the defect years ago.

Mr. Kam said he expects Justice to use its March settlement withToyota Motor Corporation as a model. In that deal, Toyota agreedto pay a record $1.2 billion penalty for concealing deadlyaccelerator problems, admitted that it misled consumers, signed adeferred prosecution agreement for criminal wire fraud andaccepted an independent monitor to oversee its safety procedures.

But at least one law professor wondered if the Toyota model canwork for GM. Peter Henning, a professor at Wayne State UniversityLaw School, told Corporate Counsel that the Valukas report willmake it difficult for prosecutors.

Mr. Henning explained that Toyota saw red flags but made falsestatements about the problem being solved when it wasn't. He saidthat doesn't appear to be the case at GM, "which had red flags anddidn't act. How can [prosecutors] get them on what they didn'tdo?"

Mr. Henning said it would be a better case if prosecutors can showthat someone lied or deliberately turned a blind eye. But theValukas report makes it sound like the engineers and lawyers were"too stupid" to say or do anything, he said. "They were soclueless that they didn't even get to the point of lying."Meanwhile, within GM some changes are evident. Some safetyofficials reportedly have retired, left the company or moved toother jobs. GM created a new job of vice president of globalvehicle safety. And Mr. Millikin named Dougherty, the GC of GMNorth America, to be the company's chief legal adviser for globalvehicle safety, even though she was Kemp's and Buonomo'ssupervisor.

The Valukas report recommended some 10 other changes in the legaldepartment. Most have to do with better communication and animproved culture of accountability. Besides Messrs. Kemp andBuonomo, the company let go Jennifer Sevigny, an attorney who ledGM's field product assessment group. As head of this group,Ms. Sevigny worked with the litigation staff on lawsuits and legalclaims. She is mentioned numerous times in the report as havingworked on assessments of the ignition problem.

And it removed Michael Robinson, vice president for environmental,sustainability and regulatory affairs since 0ctober 2009, andpreviously general counsel for GM North America for one year.Mr. Robinson joined General Motors in 1984 and held a number ofpositions on the legal staff, according to a previous GM pressrelease. Before assuming the North America GC role in 2008, heserved as a practice area manager on the legal staff and thenmanaging attorney responsible for a variety of regulatoryfunctions. Prior to that, he was responsible for GM complianceactivities and led development of the GM "Guidelines for EmployeeConduct."

In other GM moves, the Detroit News reported that the company ismore than doubling the number of engineers who look at safetyissues. With all this emphasis on safety, GM so far has recalleda record 15.8 million vehicles worldwide for various unrelatedreasons -- about 20 times as many vehicles as it recalled lastyear. And on June 17 it announced it would recall another 3.4million for unrelated ignition problems.

The company said it expects to take recall-related charges of $700million in the second quarter, up some $300 million from anearlier estimate. And GM now expects to spend some $2 billion onrecalls in the first half of 2014 alone.

But some critics still want more. In May, Sens. RichardBlumenthal, D-Conn., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., introduced asunshine-in-litigation bill. The bipartisan bill would requirefederal judges to consider public health and safety in productliability cases before agreeing to seal court records. Thesenators said sealed settlements in GM lawsuits since 2005prevented the public from having earlier knowledge of thedefective ignition switches. But such legislative efforts havefailed in the past.

Safety expert Kam would like to see Congress do one more thing."We need criminal penalties in the Safety Act," he said.Mr. Kam explained that now a company executive considering arecall that could cost hundreds of millions of dollars mightchoose to wait, "and they just might get away with it. Or atworst they face having to do a recall down the road and pay acivil penalty to NHTSA . . . It's a cold cost-benefit analysis."

But, Mr. Kam continued, "imagine if in that hypothetical case,instead of saying, 'Let's wait and save money,' the manager says,'But I can go to jail if I don't do this recall as the lawrequires.' Then it's a different equation."

GENERAL MOTORS: To Create New Industry Safety Standard, CEO Says----------------------------------------------------------------Andrew Ramonas, writing for The National Law Journal, reports thatGeneral Motors Co. will create "a new norm and a new industrystandard" for safety and quality, the automaker's chief executiveofficer, Mary Barra, said on June 18 in her first publicappearance on Capitol Hill since the publication of a criticalreport of the company's handling of an ignition-switch defect.

Appearing with former U.S. attorney Anton Valukas, the Jenner &Block chairman who wrote the report, Ms. Barra tried to convinceskeptical House panel members that GM's efforts to address thefindings is "more than a campaign" and is intended to change theway company employees think and act.

Although the investigation led by Mr. Valukas didn't find anoverarching conspiracy to conceal switch-defect information fromthe public, the probe discovered a "pattern of incompetence andneglect." The report includes recommended changes for GM's legaldepartment.

GM this year has recalled about 6 million vehicles with ignitionproblems and tied 13 deaths to the faulty switches, promptinglitigation and congressional hearings.

The company first notified the U.S. National Highway TrafficSafety Administration about the problem on Feb. 7 and beganannouncing recalls three days later -- despite receivingcomplaints from customers about switch defects for a decade. TheNHTSA in May announced that GM would pay the maximum $35 millionfor failing to promptly tell the public about the problem.

Ms. Barra, who became GM's CEO in January, said her companyalready has reformed the safety-decision making process, created avice president of global safety position and initiated a programto encourage employees to quickly report possible safety issues.She said she also will address cultural problems that the Valukasreport discovered.

"I will not rest until these problems are resolved," she saidduring the hearing held by the House Energy and CommerceCommittee's oversight and investigations subcommittee. "As I toldour employees, I'm not afraid of the truth."

House members expressed dismay with a company culture that alloweda safety problem to go unresolved for years. Some lawmakers tookparticular issue with the "GM nod" and the "GM salute," which wereuncovered by Mr. Valukas. The nod was used among managers whoagreed something had to be done, but didn't take action. Thesalute was done by employees who tried to put responsibilities onothers instead of themselves.

"I just find it hard to believe that [with] 210,000 employees, nota single one in that company had the integrity to say, 'I thinkwe're making a mistake,'" said Tim Murphy, R-Pa., thesubcommittee's chairman. "Not a single one. That's puzzling."

Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado, the top Democrat on the panel,said she isn't sure if GM can change its culture, noting that theautomaker has work to do. But Congress also needs to take action,she said.

Lawmakers introduced the Early Warning Reporting SystemImprovement Act in the Senate and the Motor Vehicle Safety Act inthe House in an effort to address concerns raised by the GMincident.

The Senate legislation from Democrats Edward Markey ofMassachusetts and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and the Housebill from Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., would direct automakers toreport to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration moreinformation about potential defects and direct the agency to makethe information it receives about safety problems easier for thepublic to view.

"This committee should get to work on legislation to address thefindings of our investigation," Ms. DeGette said.

Ms. Barra didn't comment on any particular bill. But she said shesupports efforts to make it easier for the public to seeinformation submitted to the agency.GM spent $2.9 million on federal government advocacy during thefirst quarter of this year, according to the company's most recentlobbying activity report. For its advocacy efforts, the companyuses its own employees, as well as several outside lobbyists,including some from Holland & Knight.

Plaintiffs Lawyers Skeptical

Plaintiffs lawyers remained skeptical following the June 18hearing, insisting that lawsuits against GM will uncover the truthabout the recalls.

"After the hearing [Wednes]day, I don't believe that we aregetting the complete truth," said Jere Beasley --jere.beasley@beasleyallen.com -- founding shareholder of Beasley,Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles in Montgomery, Ala. "Tofinally get the full truth about the safety culture andperformance at GM, it will require the total involvement of thecivil and criminal justice systems. I don't trust GM to do theright thing to the hundreds of families who have buried loved oneswho are killed because of GM's wrongdoing and massive cover-up."

The American Association for Justice, which has pushed to pass theSunshine in Litigation Act -- to make it harder for judges to sealsettlements in product liability defects cases -- released areport on June 18 outlining the role that lawyers have played inuncovering GM's ignition issues and other auto safety problems.

On June 18, plaintiffs attorney Steve Berman, whose firm has filedseveral class actions against GM on behalf of consumers over therecalls, filed a new case seeking damages of up to $10 billion.

The case, which seeks to certify a nationwide class, claims theautomaker's recalls this year of more than 20 million vehicleshave tarnished its reputation so much that 15 million customershave lost resale values on their cars. A woman in La Quinta,Calif., who owns a 2010 Buick LaCrosse, filed the suit.

Mr. Berman, managing partner of Seattle's Hagens Berman SobolShapiro, who was co-lead counsel of the class actions filedagainst Toyota Motor Corp. over its sudden acceleration recalls,estimated that GM vehicles have decreased in value from $500 to$2,600 each. The class action in U.S. District Court for theCentral District of California was filed on behalf of anyone whoowned or leased a GM vehicle between July 10, 2009, and April 1,2014. The class excludes owners or lessees of vehicles that weresubject to the ignition switch recalls.

"The economic reality is that all GM owners are bearing the costsof GM's actions," Mr. Berman said in a written statement.

GOOGLE INC: Judge Expresses Doubts on Fairness of Settlement------------------------------------------------------------Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that U.S.District Judge Lucy Koh expressed serious doubts on June 19 as towhether $324.5 million is fair compensation for Silicon Valleyworkers who claim their wages were suppressed by anticompetitivehiring practices.

She grilled plaintiffs attorney Kelly Dermody, a partner withLieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, who said her firm accepted thesettlement after weighing the significant risks of trial."You really think the damages would have been zero if this hadgone through trial?" Judge Koh asked. "I just think that's such astretch."

Lieff Cabraser and the Joseph Saveri Law Firm submitted theproposed settlement last month, which, if accepted by Judge Koh,would free Google Inc., Intel Corp., Adobe Systems Inc. and AppleInc. from antitrust claims that they kept down salaries byconspiring not to recruit each others' employees. Former namedplaintiff Michael Devine, who worked as an engineer for Adobe, hasobjected to the settlement and called it inadequate.

Discovery in the case generated pages of well-publicized emails inwhich executives discussed the alleged "no-poach" agreements, andthe need to keep them quiet. That evidence led some to questionwhy plaintiffs would concede to settle, especially with trial amonth away.

But for plaintiffs to succeed, a jury would have had to find thatall seven defendants (including Lucasfilm, Pixar Animation StudiosInc. and Intuit Inc., which settled claims last year for acombined $20 million) were part of an overarching conspiracy,Ms. Dermody said.

She called that a "very real risk" for plaintiffs.Questions had also been raised as to whether research done byplaintiffs' damages expert was statistically significant, Googleattorney Robert Van Nest of Keker & Van Nest said, adding therewas a significant chance a jury would have awarded low or nodamages.

"We think we paid a premium," he said. "You have Mr. Devinesaying it should have been a little bit more. Baloney."

If the court uses as a benchmark last year's $20 millionsettlement, which encompassed 8 percent of the class, thissettlement should be in the $250-$280 million range, Van Nestsaid.

"I wish you had told me how weak your case was for class cert,"she said. "If I had known what a loser this was . . . perhaps itshouldn't have gotten as much of the court's resources as it did."Plaintiffs counsel had submitted a damages estimate of $3 billion,which would have been trebled to $9 billion had the case beensuccessful. That's a far cry from the proposed settlement, underwhich each class member would receive an average of about $3,900."You're almost now a victim of your own success," Judge Koh toldMs. Dermody. "You're the one who put out the $3 billion number.That's what's gotten everyone's expectations so high."

With the extensive email evidence in this case, and the proximityto trial, Judge Koh said, it seemed the settlement value should beproportionately much higher than the Lucasfilm-Pixar-Intuit deal.Girard Gibbs partner Daniel Girard, who is challenging thesettlement on behalf of Mr. Devine, asked Judge Koh to send bothsides back to mediation to see if they can come up with a largernumber. He wouldn't specify how much more money his client wants.

As questions from the bench heated up, Ms. Dermody and Van Nest'sanswers became increasingly impassioned.

Ms. Dermody said she has always been one of the attorneys mostzealous about taking this case to trial. But as someone who has"lived and breathed" this case, and "sacrificed and sweated" forit, she said, it seems unethical to leave so much money on thetable and instead face the risks of trial.

Mr. Girard was feeling optimistic following the hearing.

"She seemed to be sympathetic to some of the arguments we advancedon Michael's behalf," he said.

Plaintiffs attorney Joseph Saveri said he wasn't too concernedabout Judge Koh's line of questions. "I think it's part of theprocess," he said.

If Judge Koh blesses the deal, a final approval hearing will beset for Nov. 6.

HAWAII: State Hospital Employees to File Class Action-----------------------------------------------------Keoki Kerr, writing for HawaiiNewsNow, reports that a class-actionlawsuit representing hundreds of State Hospital employees will befiled in the next several weeks, as the acting head of thetroubled hospital announced he plans to retire after two decadesthere.

The class-action lawsuit will be filed on behalf of hundreds offront-line staff at the State Hospital, who work directly with thementally ill.

Attorney Michael Green is representing them.

"Every week, there's somebody getting punched or kicked or theirheads are getting slapped into the walls," Mr. Green said. "Thisis really bad. It's like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest."

The lawsuit will seek financial damages from the state and changesin procedures, training and equipment for employees who areroutinely getting attacked by the mentally ill patients at thehospital.

"I've got people in here that will never work again because ofbrain injuries. People that are getting more medication than thepatients ever got in there," Mr. Green said. "The intention nowis to represent all of them and hopefully make a change. And thestate's self- insured. The money can be used for much betterthings than lawsuits."

Some state hospital employees spend weeks, months and even longeron workers compensation because of on-the-job injuries.

"The people I spoke to are all on worker's comp. And there mustbe another 25 percent who don't go out because they're told 'Ifyou go out, you ain't coming back,'" Mr. Green said.

Dr. Scott Miscovich, the Kaneohe private physician who's treatedmore than six state hospital employees for on-the-job attacks inthe last year, including four employees who first spoke to HawaiiNews Now in November.

Dr. Miscovich said he hoped the lawsuit will force the state toscreen all injured employees for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

"When you're in a work environment where you're assaulted or youmay have the potential to get assaulted every time you go to work,it has the potential to wear on your psychologically. It affectstheir home life, it affects their ability to deal with theirfamilies," Dr. Miscovich said.

Dr. Miscovich said the state should also test state hospitalemployees who've been struck in the head for traumatic braininjuries.

"This may manifest its self as early as the 30s, 40s, 50s in thesepeople and they may not be aware that it's happening to them afterbeing hit in the head numerous times," Dr. Miscovich said.

Meanwhile, Bill Elliott, who has been acting administrator at thehospital since March 2013, announced he will retire from thehospital after 20 years on Aug. 1.

Mr. Elliott will retire about three weeks after a newadministrator, William May, takes over at the hospital. Mr. Maycurrently works as superintendent of the Colorado Mental HealthInstitute.

Last November, a Hawaii News Now investigation first revealed thatState Hospital employees were suffering an average of one assaultevery three days. Employees came forward to complain aboutassaults, mismanagement, nepotism and a lack of training and shortstaffing at the facility.

The State Senate then convened a special investigation,subpoenaing documents and witnesses and held numerous hearings sofar this year.

State Health Department officials said they are working to improveproblems at the facility, including upgrading training.

HEALTH MATTERS: Salmonella Outbreak Linked to Chia Powder---------------------------------------------------------Centers for Disease Control on June 11 disclosed that as ofJune 9, a total of 21 persons infected with the outbreak strainsof Salmonella Newport, Salmonella Hartford, or SalmonellaOranienburg have been reported from 12 states.

Two ill persons infected with a strain of Salmonella Oranienburghave been identified in two U.S. states. No deaths have beenreported. Through product testing and interviews with ill people,these illnesses have been combined with the Salmonella Newport andSalmonella Hartford infections previously identified as part ofthis investigation.

Collaborative investigation efforts of state, local, and federalpublic health and regulatory agencies indicate that organicsprouted chia powder is the likely source of this outbreak. Chiapowder is made from ground dried chia seeds.

The Public Health Agency of Canada continues to investigatesimilar cases of Salmonella infection in several Canadianprovinces. Several Canadian companies have recalled productscontaining sprouted chia powder or chia seeds.

CDC recommends that consumers do not eat any of the recalledproducts containing chia. These products have a long shelf-lifeand may still be in people's homes. The recalled products wereavailable for purchase in many retail stores nationwide andonline.

HULU: Judge Tosses Video Privacy Class Action---------------------------------------------Julia Love, writing for The Recorder, reports that with eye-popping damages at stake, a federal judge has refused to allowplaintiffs to move forward as a class with claims that Huluviolated their privacy by sharing the videos they viewed.

In a 38-page order issued on June 17, U.S. Magistrate Judge LaurelBeeler dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs' motion to certify aclass of Hulu users. Plaintiffs filed their claims under theVideo Privacy Protection Act, a 1980s law that provides forstatutory damages of $2,500 per violation. Hulu had warned thecourt that it might have to pay billions in damages if a classwere certified.

Without a detailed proposal for verification from the plaintiffs,Beeler concluded that she would likely have to rely on self-reporting to determine who belonged in the class. She insistedthat class members should be subjected to greater scrutiny beforecashing in on such a large award.

"The claims apparently are not amenable to ready verification,"she wrote. "And at $2,500 per class member, they are not small."Beeler seconded Hulu's concerns that the handsome damages at stakecould entice Hulu users to try to join the class, regardless ofwhether their privacy had been violated.

"That incentive and the vagaries of subjective recollection makethis case different than the small-ticket consumer protectionclass actions that this district certifies routinely," she wrote.

Hulu lawyer Robert Schwartz of O'Melveny & Myers declined tocomment on the order, and a spokesman for the video-streaming sitedid not respond to a request for comment. Plaintiffs lawyer ScottKamber of New York's KamberLaw said plaintiffs still hope toproceed as a class.

"Plaintiffs appreciate Judge Beeler's thoughtful opinion, which weare continuing to review in detail," he said. "We have everyintention of taking any additional discovery that may be necessaryand following the decision in order to renew our motion for classcertification."

Plaintiffs in In re Hulu Privacy Litigation, 11-3764, claimed thatHulu trampled their right to privacy by sharing the titles ofvideos they viewed on the site with Facebook and data analyticsfirm comScore. The VPPA was enacted by Congress in 1988 after anewspaper published a list of videos rented by U.S. Supreme Courtnominee Robert Bork.

Ruling on Hulu's motion for summary judgment in April, JudgeBeeler found that Hulu was not liable for sharing information withcomScore but refused let the company off the hook for informationit shared with Facebook.

Hulu installed a Facebook "like" button on its video pages in2010. But even if a user didn't click on the button, Hulu sentthe title of the video and other information back to the socialnetworking company, according to plaintiffs.

Judge Beeler noted that many people block or delete cookies,meaning the court would have to launch a complex inquiry todetermine which Hulu users had actually been harmed.

"Objective criteria . . . are important to establishing classmembership as opposed to relying only on potential members' say soand subjective memories that may be imperfect," Judge Beelerwrote. Subclasses might address the issue, but plaintiffs had notproposed any tools for narrowing down the pool, she added.Plaintiffs limited their potential damages haul somewhat byseeking just one violation per class member. Still, Hulu arguedthat it could invoke the due process clause if the court found itmust pay billions for sharing viewers' information. The concernseemed to resonate with Judge Beeler.

"That award is wildly disproportionate to any adverse effectsclass members suffered, and it shocks the conscience," JudgeBeeler wrote.

Three named plaintiffs and Puente Arizona, a human rights group,sued Arpaio, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, MaricopaCounty, and Robert Halliday, director of the Arizona Department ofPublic Safety.

"This action challenges two state laws, Arizona House Bill 2779('H.B. 2779'), passed in 2007, and Arizona House Bill 2745 ('H.B.2745'), passed in 2008, which sought, in relevant part, tocriminally punish individuals who do not have federalauthorization to work in the United States for the act of securingemployment. Both measures were promulgated as part of a broaderplatform favored by Arizona nativists to make life so difficultfor immigrants coming from Mexico and Latin America that theywould 'self-deport,'" the 35-page lawsuit begins.

"The effect of these measures has been to turn individuals such asplaintiff Sara Cervantes Arreola -- who worked for years at agrocery store on Phoenix's west side to support her young son --into convicted felons. Ms. Cervantes Arreola was arrested at workin January 2013 for using identifying information of a fictitiousperson, something she needed to do in order to get the job.

"Arizona entered uncharted territory as a state when it revisedits identity theft laws to achieve this aim. Specifically, H.B.2779, also called the 'Legal Arizona Workers Act,' created a newoffense of aggravated identity theft to use the information of'another person, including a real or fictitious person, with theintent to obtain employment.' A.R.S. Section 13-2009(A)(3). H.B.2745 supplemented the Legal Arizona Workers Act by defining theoffense of identity theft to include use of another's information,real or fictitious, 'with the intent to obtain or continueemployment.' Section 13- 2008(A)."

Arpaio has used those laws for six years "to carry out a campaignof workplace raids targeting undocumented immigrants," thecomplaint states. The raids have "separated breadwinners fromtheir families, suppressed workers' rights, eroded the socialfabric of the community, and ultimately harmed many U.S. citizensas well as immigrants."

The plaintiffs claim Arpaio's raid improperly divert taxpayers'funds from essential public safety and services to prosecuteworkers. They add: "Arizona's effort to single out employment byundocumented workers intrudes upon an area of exclusive federalcontrol. The worker identity provisions interfere and conflictwith federal laws established by Congress and implemented by theexecutive branch regulating immigration and employment, and thusviolate the Supremacy Clause. They also discriminate on the basisof alienage in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.Constitution."

Cervantes Arreola was arrested and convicted of felony aggravatedidentity theft for using fake identification to get a job at agrocery store.

"Cervantes feels as if her felony conviction has marked her lifeforever. She believes that people in her community now look ather differently," the complaint states. "She worries that theconviction will negatively impact her in the event she is everstopped or detained by police in the future, and may impact herchances for future immigration relief."

Cervantes is joined by Guadalupe Arredondo -- who was convicted offelony identity theft after she was arrested while working at apaper factory -- and Susan Frederick-Gray, as individualplaintiffs.

Frederick-Gray is the lead minister of the Unitarian UniversalistCongregation of Phoenix, and "is challenging the enforcement ofthese statutes as an illegal expenditure of county taxpayerfunds."

"Maricopa County is the only jurisdiction systematically enforcingthese tools given to it by the state Legislature," said DanPochoda, legal director of the ACLU of Arizona and co-counsel forplaintiffs, in a statement. "We know from past experience thatwhen the MCSO gets into the business of immigration enforcement,it's a recipe for discrimination and abuse."

A federal judge found in 2013 that the Arpaio's Maricopa CountySheriff's Office violated the civil rights of Latinos by raciallyprofiling them and subjecting them to traffic stops and arrestswithout probable cause.

The class seeks a declaration stating that its civil rights wereviolated, and an injunction to stop the agencies from enforcingthe state laws. It is represented by Anne Lai of the Universityof California-Irvine School of Law Immigrant Rights Clinic.

Arpaio has been sued more than 350 times, often on civil rightsclaims, and in class actions, according Courthouse News database.He is serving his sixth 4-year term as sheriff of Maricopa County,which includes Phoenix.

Kangadis Food Inc., which is fighting claims that it improperlymarketed a chemically treated olive byproduct as "100% pure oliveoil," recently sought bankruptcy protection in an attempt to putthe brakes on a class-action suit over the alleged mislabeling.

The family-owned company filed for Chapter 11 on June 6 in U.S.Bankruptcy Court in Central Islip, New York, saying theapproximately $1.4 million in legal fees it has racked up over thepast year and a half have hurt what is otherwise a profitablebusiness.

The goal of the filing, according to Kangadis Food's bankruptcylawyer, is to avoid paying an estimated $750,000 to $1 millionmore to defend itself in a class-action suit scheduled to go totrial in September. Under the Bankruptcy Code, a company can askthe bankruptcy court to estimate the damages that it would incurin a civil suit, in lieu of litigating the case to its conclusion.That estimation is then used to create a creditor-repayment planin the bankruptcy.

"The company just couldn't afford it," SilvermanAcampora LLPpartner Adam Rosen told Bankruptcy Beat. Spending more cash onthe trial "would only make us go into bankruptcy later," Mr. Rosensaid, "and at that time it'll be a liquidation."

Plaintiffs' lawyers pushing the class action on behalf of KangadisFood customers and the judge overseeing the case are alreadyopposing the bankruptcy filing.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in New York ruled that a relatedsuit against members of the Kangadis family -- who haven't filedfor bankruptcy -- that had been dismissed in April can be refiledimmediately and go to trial in September.

Plaintiffs' lawyer Scott Bursor says that his clients have a"constitutional right to a jury trial" and that having abankruptcy court estimate the damages "is an impossibility."

Mr. Bursor argues Kangadis Food "is neither bankrupt norinsolvent," pointing to filings listing its assets at roughly$12.3 million against liabilities of $6.1 million. "The desire ofa solvent and profitable company to avoid the costs of a jurytrial is not a proper ground for a Chapter 11 petition,"Mr. Bursor wrote.

The pending class action follows another suit brought in February2013 by North American Olive Oil Association. In the suit, thetrade association alleged that products Kangadis Food sold underits Capatriti brand labeled as "100% pure olive oil" were actuallymade of a byproduct called olive pomace oil.

Kangadis Food settled the trade association suit without admittingliability. In a recent press release, the company's CEO,Themas Kangadis, said all of its products "meet all applicableregulatory standards" and "are randomly tested for quality"throughout the year.

KEURIG GREEN: "Gray" Suit Consolidated in Single-Serve Coffee MDL-----------------------------------------------------------------The purported class action lawsuit captioned Gray, et al. v.Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00696, wastransferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern Districtof California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern Districtof New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerkassigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04398-VSB to the proceeding.

The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigationassigned the case to Judge Vernon S. Broderick for coordinated orconsolidated pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigationcaptioned In re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve CoffeeAntitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02542-VSB, which iscurrently pending in the Southern District of New York.

The actions in the litigation primarily involve allegations thatKeurig Green Mountain, Inc., and its predecessors Green MountainCoffee Roasters and Keurig Incorporated have engaged inanticompetitive conduct with respect to the Keurig single-servebrewer and single-serve coffee packs utilized in the Keurigbrewer.

KEURIG GREEN: "Hudson" Suit Included in Single-Serve Coffee MDL---------------------------------------------------------------The purported class action lawsuit styled Hudson, et al. v. KeurigGreen Mountain, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00976, wastransferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern Districtof California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern Districtof New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerkassigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04399-VSB to the proceeding.

The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigationassigned the case to Judge Vernon S. Broderick for coordinated orconsolidated pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigationcaptioned In re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve CoffeeAntitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02542-VSB, which iscurrently pending in the Southern District of New York.

The actions in the litigation primarily involve allegations thatKeurig Green Mountain, Inc., and its predecessors Green MountainCoffee Roasters and Keurig Incorporated have engaged inanticompetitive conduct with respect to the Keurig single-servebrewer and single-serve coffee packs utilized in the Keurigbrewer.

KEURIG GREEN: "Major" Suit Included in Single-Serve Coffee MDL--------------------------------------------------------------The purported class action lawsuit styled Major v. Keurig GreenMountain Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-00348, was transferredfrom the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware to theU.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (FoleySquare). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.1:14-cv-04407-VSB to the proceeding.

The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigationassigned the case to Judge Vernon S. Broderick for coordinated orconsolidated pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigationcaptioned In re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve CoffeeAntitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02542-VSB, which iscurrently pending in the Southern District of New York.

The actions in the litigation primarily involve allegations thatKeurig Green Mountain, Inc., and its predecessors Green MountainCoffee Roasters and Keurig Incorporated have engaged inanticompetitive conduct with respect to the Keurig single-servebrewer and single-serve coffee packs utilized in the Keurigbrewer.

KEURIG GREEN: "Nelson" Suit Included in Single-Serve Coffee MDL---------------------------------------------------------------The class action lawsuit styled Nelson v. Keurig Green Mountain,Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-01143, was transferred from theU.S. District Court for the Southern District of California to theU.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (FoleySquare). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.1:14-cv-04403-VSB to the proceeding.

The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigationassigned the case to Judge Vernon S. Broderick for coordinated orconsolidated pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigationcaptioned In re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve CoffeeAntitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02542-VSB, which iscurrently pending in the Southern District of New York.

The actions in the litigation primarily involve allegations thatKeurig Green Mountain, Inc., and its predecessors Green MountainCoffee Roasters and Keurig Incorporated have engaged inanticompetitive conduct with respect to the Keurig single-servebrewer and single-serve coffee packs utilized in the Keurigbrewer.

KEURIG GREEN: Purchaser Suit Included in Single-Serve Coffee MDL----------------------------------------------------------------The consolidated class action lawsuit styled In Re Keurig K-CupIndirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:14-cv-00678,was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the SouthernDistrict of California to the U.S. District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York (Foley Square). The New York District CourtClerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04391-VSB to the proceeding.

The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigationassigned the consolidated lawsuit to Judge Vernon S. Broderick forcoordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in themultidistrict litigation captioned In re: Keurig Green MountainSingle-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02542-VSB, which is currently pending in the Southern District of NewYork.

The actions in the multidistrict litigation primarily involveallegations that Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., and its predecessorsGreen Mountain Coffee Roasters and Keurig Incorporated haveengaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to the Keurigsingle-serve brewer and single-serve coffee packs utilized in theKeurig brewer.

KEURIG GREEN: "Rehma" Suit Included in Single-Serve Coffee MDL--------------------------------------------------------------The purported class action lawsuit titled Rehma, et al. v. KeurigGreen Mountain, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-01131, wastransferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern Districtof California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern Districtof New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerkassigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04405-VSB to the proceeding.

The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigationassigned the case to Judge Vernon S. Broderick for coordinated orconsolidated pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigationcaptioned In re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve CoffeeAntitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02542-VSB, which iscurrently pending in the Southern District of New York.

The actions in the litigation primarily involve allegations thatKeurig Green Mountain, Inc., and its predecessors Green MountainCoffee Roasters and Keurig Incorporated have engaged inanticompetitive conduct with respect to the Keurig single-servebrewer and single-serve coffee packs utilized in the Keurigbrewer.

Subject to Court Approval, a Settlement has been reached in aclass action lawsuit claiming that King Pharmaceuticals conspiredto prevent and delay generic competition to its brand-name drug,Skelaxin, resulting in artificially high prices. The lawsuit iscalled Jabo's Pharmacy, Inc. v. King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and ispending in the Circuit Court for Cocke County, Tennessee.

King denies it did anything wrong, and the Court has not decidedwho is right. The Court still has to decide whether to approvethe Settlement. If it does, eligible Class Members may receivecash benefits.

Who is a Class Member?

You are a Class Member if you operate a business in Tennessee andindirectly purchased Skelaxin for resale since November 4, 2005.Purchasing "indirectly" means that you purchased Skelaxin from awholesaler or distributor, rather than directly from themanufacturer. Purchasing "for resale" means that you resold theSkelaxin you purchased to consumers. Excluded from the SettlementClass are Defendant's employees, officers, directors, agents, andrepresentatives.

What are the benefits?

King has agreed to pay $2.4 million in exchange for a release ofclaims asserted in this case. Subject to Court approval, thesettlement funds will first be used to pay attorneys' fees,expenses, and an incentive award. The remaining amount will bedistributed to Class Members who submit valid Claim Forms inproportion to their relevant purchases of Skelaxin in Tennessee,up to the amount of damages suffered. Any remaining or unclaimedfunds will be distributed to charitable or not-for-profitorganizations as directed by the Court. If you wish to object,you must file your objection by August 1, 2014.

How do I receive benefits?

To receive benefits you must submit a Claim Form. File online atthe website below or request one by calling 1-844-491-5742,contacting us through the website below, or writing to SkelaxinSettlement Administrator, P.O. Box 550, Philadelphia, PA 19105-0550. Claim Forms submitted by mail must be postmarked on or bySeptember 15, 2014.

What are my rights?

Submit a claim -- to receive benefits, you must submit a ClaimForm by the deadline. Do nothing -- if you do nothing, you willnot receive benefits. You will be bound by the decisions of theCourt and will not be able to sue King. Exclude yourself -- ifyou exclude yourself, you will not receive benefits, but you canpursue a lawsuit against King on your own. The exclusion deadlineis August 1, 2014. Complete details of your rights and how toexclude yourself are found on the website.

The Court has scheduled a hearing to determine the fairness of theSettlement, attorneys' fees and expenses, and an incentive award.The motion for attorneys' fees and expenses and an incentive awardwill be filed by July 17, 2014 and will be posted on the websitebelow. The Hearing will be held on September 22, 2014 at 9:00a.m., in the Circuit Court for Cocke County, Tennessee at 111Court Avenue, Newport, Tennessee. You may appear at the Hearing,but you don't have to. Payments to valid Claimants will be madeonly after the Court approves the Settlement and after any appealsare resolved, which may take time.

This is only a summary. Visit the websitewww.SkelaxinTennesseeSettlement.com for more detailed information.

KRAFT: Recalls Velveeta Cheese Over Food Borne Illness Risk-----------------------------------------------------------Samantha Bomkamp, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that Kraftis recalling a batch of Velveeta cheese shipped to Walmart in theMidwest because it doesn't contain enough of a specificpreservative and can spoil too fast, potentially causing a foodborne illness.

The cheese product was shipped to three Walmart distributioncenters and may have been redistributed to stores in as many as 12states, including Illinois. The recall includes one batch made ona single manufacturing line over a few hours of production.

The recalled product is in 32-ounce containers. They will have a"Best Used By" date of Dec. 17, 2014 and consumer package codebetween 09:34 and 13:15 next to the date.

Consumers who have bought the product should return them to thestore for a full refund, or call Kraft Foods Consumer Relations at(800) 310-3704 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central time.

This recall affects one batch of product made on one manufacturingline during a few hours of production. The product was shipped tothree Walmart distribution centers and may have been redistributedto stores in up to 12 Midwest states.

The affected products may have been shipped to Walmart stores inColorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota,Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota and Wisconsin. Theseproducts were not shipped outside of the U.S.

LOS ANGELES CLIPPERS: Interns File Wage Class Action in California------------------------------------------------------------------Aaron Vehling, Karlee Weinmann and Kat Greene, writing for Law360,report that a former employee of the Los Angeles Clippers onJune 10 hit the basketball team with a proposed wage-and-hourclass action in California federal court, accusing the Clippersand beleaguered owner Donald Sterling of misclassifying him andothers as unpaid interns as part of a pattern to illegally reducelabor costs.

Named plaintiff Frank Cooper, a former fan relations staffer,filed suit on behalf of himself and all similarly situated,accusing the Clippers and Sterling's family trust, whichtechnically owns the team, of violating the Fair Labor StandardsAct and California Labor Law by requiring interns to perform thework of paid employees without compensation.

"Plaintiff's unpaid work for defendants is part of a broader trendwhere employees are being misclassified as unpaid 'interns' in aneffort by employers to avoid paying wages as required by statelaws and FLSA," the lawsuit says. "These programs purport to betraining programs, but provide little value to the worker whileenriching the employer through the provision of free labor."

Mr. Cooper seeks certification of FLSA and California Labor Lawsubclasses of interns who were unpaid for their work fromSept. 28, 2012, through the present, according to the suit. Heseeks unpaid minimum wages, damages, restitution and an accountingof the Clippers' records for the liability period, among otherthings.

Maurice Pianko of the Pianko Law Group, one of the firmsrepresenting Mr. Cooper, told Law360 in a statement on June 11that the "lure of working with a popular brand such as theClippers draws many young people in, in the hopes of finding ajob, but they're ultimately utilized in a way that's illegal andunfair, and unfortunately, ultimately their work is beneficial tothe corporation, but not to the intern."

Mr. Cooper, who now lives in Houston, Texas, worked for theClippers just shy of two months in 2012, during which he was a fanrelations intern. He organized basketball clinics for fans andcamps for children, supervised autograph sessions with players andperformed office work such as distributing gifts and prizes andmailing season tickets, among other similar tasks, according tothe suit. All of these tasks were similar to those paid employeesperformed, according to the suit.

He and other interns did not have a set schedule, but they workedbetween 40 and 50 hours a week, the suit says. Although the frontoffice considered their positions as part of a vocational trainingprogram and as a result did not pay them, Cooper and others wereactually performing tasks recognized as actual work under federaland state labor laws, the suit says.

Mr. Cooper said in the suit that without his and others'contributions to the organization, the team would have had to hireadditional employees or require current staff to work additionalhours.

"The employer cannot derive any immediate advantage from theintern's work or require the intern to do the work of regularemployees," the suit says. "Defendants' failure to pay internsfor years runs afoul of basic wage-and-hour laws."

Mr. Cooper's suit arrives at a time when Mr. Sterling, whom theNational Basketball Association banned for life for racist remarkshe made that were recorded, has renewed his push to sue the NBAfor $1 billion on antitrust claims less than a week after heagreed to approve his wife Shelly's plan to sell the franchise toformer Microsoft Corp. CEO Steve Ballmer. The transaction was acompromise after the NBA made clear it would try to force aClippers sale. In response to Mr. Sterling's suit revival, Shellyhas sought emergency measures to preserve the sale.

On top of that litigation, this is not the first employment-related suit the team has faced recently. On June 2, a formerassistant to Donald Sterling said her former boss withheld pay andeventually fired her when she refused to perform sex acts andcomplained about racist remarks he made about her children.

Mr. Cooper is represented by Nicholas Ranallo of Nicholas RanalloLaw Offices and Maurice Pianko of the Pianko Law Group PLLC.

The case is Frank Cooper v. LAC Basketball Club Inc. and TheSterling Family Trust, case number 2:14-cv-04445, in the U.S.District Court for the Central District of California.

LOWE'S: Settles Installers' Class Action for $6.5 Million---------------------------------------------------------Jenna Reed, writing for glassBYTEs.com, reports that Lowe'smanagement recently agreed to pay $6.5 million to settle aCalifornia class action complaint in which former independentcontractors installing garage doors allege they were treated likecompany employees without the benefits, violating state labor law.The settlement could have implications for the AGRR industry, asmany collision repair shops outsource automotive glassinstallation work to independent sub-contractors.

The legal dispute began when two former contractors -- RonaldShephard and Henry Romines -- filed a complaint alleging Lowe'sviolated California labor law to install garage doors.Mr. Romines later voluntarily dismissed claims; however, Shephardcontinued on with his attorneys arguing in favor of class actionstatus. The court certified a class of: "All persons whoinstalled products for Lowe's or performed services for Lowe's inthe State of California and who were treated as independentcontractors by Lowe's but over whom Lowe's exercised control anddiscretion in the performance of their installation services."

Lowe's attorneys continued to argue against class action statusand the court set a hearing date of September 19, 2014.

"Specifically, plaintiffs assert that Lowe's had the right tocontrol, and in fact did control all aspects of installationservices performed by Shephard and all other Type 1 and generalcontractor installers," according to the settlement forpreliminary approval proposed to the U.S Northern District Courtof California, Oakland division.

"Plaintiffs further allege that Lowe's misclassification of theinstallers caused harm not only to the installers who did notreceive the benefits attendant with being treated as employees,but also resulted in harm to the installation companies thatcontracted with Lowe's," the attorneys allege in the documents.

In discussing the proposed settlement, Shephard's attorneys write,"Shephard determined that if this action proceeded to trial and ifShephard prevailed on all of his claims, the maximum amountrecoverable for the class would have been approximately $33million. Shephard submits that a recovery of $6.5 million, orapproximately 20 percent of the recoverable damages, is aneminently fair and reasonable recovery."

Approximately 4,029 individual installers and 949 installationcompanies are eligible to receive payment from the proposedsettlement.

"The maximum settlement amount equates to about $1,613.30 persettlement class member," according to court documents.

The class action complaint was originally filed on June 15, 2012.The certified class period runs from 2008 to the present.

"Plaintiffs believe that their claims are meritorious and that, attrial, they could prove that Lowe's misclassified Shephard and allother installers because Lowe's had the right to control theperformance of the installers' work and other secondary indicia ofan employment relationship are present. Moreover, this conductharmed MGDI and all other installation companies," plaintiffs'attorneys claim.

"[H]owever, despite plaintiffs' confidence in the merits of theirclaims, they recognize that an outcome in their favor is far froma certainty. . . . Plaintiffs recognize that Lowe's would assertstrong factual and legal defenses to the claims alleged herein andthat plaintiffs and the class prevailing in this action was farfrom certain. Lowe's asserted that each installation companyoperated their own separate business, hired their own employees,paid their employees' wages and benefits and made all decisionsrelating to employment matters and issues relating to theiremployees so they could not possibly be deemed employees ofLowe's. . . . Therefore, plaintiffs' submit that the proposedsettlement is in the best interests of the settlement classmembers because it provides a certain favorable outcome,"attorneys explain.

MEDTRONIC INC: Sued for Misrepresenting Bone-Graft Device---------------------------------------------------------Jef Feeley, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that MedtronicInc., one of the world's largest medical-device makers, was suedby Humana Inc. for allegedly marketing its Infuse bone-graftproduct for uses that weren't approved by regulators and dupingthe insurer into covering those claims.

Medtronic paid doctors hundreds of millions of dollars to tout thesafety and effectiveness of the Infuse product for a variety ofspinal surgeries even though the U.S. Food and Drug Administrationhad limited its use to lower-back procedures, Humana said in acomplaint filed May 30 in federal court in Tennessee.

The suit comes less than a month after Minneapolis-based Medtronicagreed to pay $22 million to settle 950 lawsuits over thebone-graft system and said it was taking a charge of as much as$140 million to cover litigation costs linked to the product.

Medtronic officials "misrepresented the safety, efficacy andnecessity of Infuse through fraudulent studies and peer-reviewedpublications," Humana's attorneys said. "Humana justifiablyrelied on the misrepresentations" in paying claims on the product.

Medtronic called Humana's claims "baseless," saying the companylisted health risks linked to Infuse on the product's label sinceit went on sale in the U.S. in 2002.

$900 Million

"Medtronic does not compensate physicians for the use orendorsement of our products, and disagrees with any suggestion tothe contrary," Eric Epperson, a company spokesman, said in ane-mailed statement.

Medtronic generated about $900 million in Infuse sales in 2011alone, according to Louisville, Kentucky-based Humana's complaint."The vast majority" of Infuse sales were for unapproved, or off-label uses, according to the complaint.

The product accounted for $471 million in sales in fiscal year2014, according to a company earnings report.

Studies have shown that Infuse, which helps help bones heal afterspinal surgery, has been found to pose an increased risk of canceralong with infections and male sterility. FDA officials warnedsurgeons not to use the product in cervical-spine procedures inJuly 2008 after learning of complications in dozens of patients.

In 2012, a U.S. Senate committee found Medtronic officials paiddoctors who marketed Infuse to their colleagues in speeches orarticles more than $200 million in consulting fees and royalties.Senate investigators also determined that company officialsghost-wrote sections of medical papers touting the product.

Medtronic agreed last week to pay $9.9 million to settle U.S.government claims that it paid doctors kickbacks to implant itsheart-rhythm devices such as defibrillators and pacemakers.

The case is Humana Inc. (HUM) v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA Inc.,14-cv-02405, U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee.

MERCK & CO: Judge Tosses Bellwether Case in Fosamax Litigation--------------------------------------------------------------Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports thata federal judge in New Jersey has dismissed on summary judgment abellwether case against Merck & Co. in the mass litigation overFosamax, an osteoporosis treatment that can lead to femurfractures.

U.S. District Judge Joel Pisano on June 17 found that plaintiffBarbara Gaynor's claims fail because she took the drug after Merckrevised its labeling in 2010 to fully convey the potential forfractures, and she did not set forth sufficient evidence thatMerck did not give her doctor adequate notice.

Merck suggested Mrs. Gaynor's case for trial as representative ofthe interests of plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation whoattribute fractured femurs to use of the drug after the labelchange.

The ruling comes a year after a defense verdict in another Fosamaxsuit, brought by a user of the drug before the labeling change.Following that decision, in Glynn v. Merck, Judge Pisano dismissedroughly 650 similar cases.

Another 215 cases pending in the MDL were brought by users of thedrug after the label change.

Plaintiff counsel Paul Pennock of Weitz & Luxenberg in New Yorksaid he expects Pisano to issue an order to show cause why thosecases should not be dismissed in light of the Gaynor ruling.Mrs. Gaynor, of Hicksville, N.Y., took Fosamax from 1996 until shefractured her right femur in September 2011. She claimed herlong-term use of the drug made the relabeling immaterial, saying,"Merck has submitted no evidence that Mrs. Gaynor's use of Fosamaxin 2011 was a substantial factor in causing her femur fracture."Judge Pisano said that argument confused the proper analysis of afailure-to-warn claim by expecting that Merck first prove that noissue of fact concerning proximate cause existed.

Judge Pisano called Gaynor's contention that Merck should beliable for failing to warn of Fosamax's dangers in the late 1990sand the early 2000s "baffling," because he had ruled in Glynn thatsuch claims are preempted. Merck maintained that it had soughtFood & Drug Administration approval of a stronger warning but itwas rejected.

Judge Pisano said Gaynor "re-characterized" her suit's claim thatMerck's warnings about the side effects of Fosamax were inadequatewhen she later contended that the court should not decide thatclaim because it was not a proximate cause of her injury. He saidshe "cannot have it both ways."

Her lawyer, Mr. Pennock, said the decision was "clearly wrong"because her fractured femur was "a fait accompli" by the timeMerck changed the label.

Merck spokeswoman Lainie Keller said on June 18: "We are pleasedwith the court's ruling that the updates to the Fosamax label in2011 were adequate as a matter of law and that Merck adequatelycommunicated those changes to others. The company providedappropriate and timely information about Fosamax to consumers andto the medical, scientific and regulatory communities. We remainconfident in the efficacy and safety profile of Fosamax and willcontinue to always act in the best interest of patients."

An appeal of the Glynn ruling on preemption is pending before theU.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

All told, Merck has been named in 4,430 suits claiming Fosamaxcaused femur fractures. Of those, 2,785 are in state court in NewJersey, pending before Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee. Another525 femur cases were filed in state court in California, and 1,120went to the MDL.

The company also was named in about 1,150 suits claiming thatFosamax caused necrosis of the jawbone, most of which havesettled.

NAT'L COLLEGIATE: "Jenkins" Suit Joined in Grant-In-Aid Cap MDL---------------------------------------------------------------The class action lawsuit titled Jenkins, et al. v. NationalCollegiate Athletic Association, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-01678,was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District ofNew Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District ofCalifornia (Oakland). The California District Court Clerkassigned Case No. 4:14-cv-02758-CW to the proceeding.

The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigationassigned the lawsuit to the Honorable Claudia Wilken forcoordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in themultidistrict litigation known as In Re: National CollegiateAthletic Association Athletic Grant-In-Aid Cap AntitrustLitigation, MDL No. 2541.

The antitrust litigation challenges to the National CollegiateAthletic Association's bylaws that limit athletic grants-in-aid(also known as athletic scholarships) to tuition and fees, roomand board, and required course-related books.

NAT'L COLLEGIATE: "Lauricella" Suit Joined in Grant-In-Aid Cap MDL------------------------------------------------------------------The class action lawsuit styled Lauricella v. National CollegiateAthletic Association, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-01220, wastransferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern Districtof Louisiana to the U.S. District Court for the Northern Districtof California (Oakland). The California District Court Clerkassigned Case No. 4:14-cv-02756-CW to the proceeding.

The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigationassigned the lawsuit to the Honorable Claudia Wilken forcoordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in themultidistrict litigation known as In Re: National CollegiateAthletic Association Athletic Grant-In-Aid Cap AntitrustLitigation, MDL No. 2541.

The antitrust litigation challenges to the National CollegiateAthletic Association's bylaws that limit athletic grants-in-aid(also known as athletic scholarships) to tuition and fees, roomand board, and required course-related books.

NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Defends System Against Antitrust Litigation-------------------------------------------------------------Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that as theantitrust trial over profits from college sports reached itsmidpoint on June 18, 2014, NCAA attorneys claimed that student-athletes would neglect their studies if they are paid fortelevised games, and that the money they exact will forceuniversities to cut funding for less profitable sports.

Rather than raise tuition, which University of South CarolinaPresident Harris Pastides said would be "unacceptable," thecollege would take the money from the budgets for other sports.

"We would look to cutting programs within athletics to make up forthat shortfall, as objectionable and distasteful as that mightbe," Pastides said.

Pastides said paying student-athletes a $9.5 million share forhaving their names, images and likenesses shown on TV "would be avery serious challenge," even though the school made $19.7 millionlast year from broadcast revenue from football and men'sbasketball alone.

Plaintiffs' attorney Michael Hausfeld pointed to a chart showing adramatic increase in head football coach Steve Spurrier's salaryfrom 2006-2013, topping out at $5.5 million last year. Pastidesdisputed that amount, saying he believed Spurrier makes $4million.

The NCAA has been sued by a class of college football and men'sbasketball players led by former UCLA basketball player EdO'Bannon. The student athletes seek a share in the revenues fromtelevision broadcasts.

In testifying before U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, Pastidessaid paid student-athletes would be nothing short of disastrousfor students and sports alike.

"It would create a new and unique relationship for a smallminority of students that would be viewed as apart from thestudent body and a part from the university. It would create awedge between those student athletes who receive the funds andthose who don't," Pastides said. "It would offer them a licenseto not follow the rules of the university and encourage them tohave one foot in some prof world and diminish the intrinsic valueof them receiving a great education and graduating."

Pastides added: "It would render the student athletes who don'treceive these monetary awards as second-class citizens. Theywould feel worse about themselves and their relationships withplayers that do receive payments. There would be an increasedgulf between them."

Under cross-examination from Hausfeld, Pastides said he supportssome kind of increased compensation for college athletes butadded: "It's completely a matter of degree." What Pastides wouldlike to see, he said, is a bigger financial aid package forplayers.

"If we go down that path to paying for name, image and likeness,that takes away from why our students are there, for theeducation. The focus could be on driving resources in that regardand that would concern me," Muir said.

NAT'L COLLEGIATE: President to Testify in O'Bannon Trial--------------------------------------------------------The Associated Press reports that NCAA President Mark Emmert wasset to take the stand to defend his organization in a landmarkantitrust case that could one day lead to players getting paid aportion of the billions of dollars in television money flowinginto big-time college athletics.

Emmert was scheduled to testify on June 19 in a much anticipatedappearance as the NCAA tries to convince a federal judge that itssystem of so-called "amateurism" is not anti-competitive and isthe best model for regulating college sports.

Plaintiffs led by former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon areseeking an injunction that would allow players to band togetherand sell the rights to their names and likenesses in broadcasts.They envision a system in which players can get money when theyleave college for their play.

NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Electronic Arts EVP Testifies in Likeness Suit----------------------------------------------------------------Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that ElectronicArts Inc.'s chief legal officer took the stand on June 18 inOakland federal court, testifying his company's video gameproduction was stunted by NCAA restrictions on the use of collegeathletes' names and likenesses.

Joel Linzner, EA's executive vice president of business and legalaffairs, said his company tried for years to develop collegesports games featuring specific football and men's basketballplayers but ran up against the National Collegiate AthleticAssociation's blanket prohibition on players licensing and earningmoney off their names and likenesses. NCAA executives toldMr. Linzner that athletes who appeared in EA games would be atrisk of losing their eligibility to play, he said.

"Consumers like having the real players in the simulated sportsthat we develop and publish," Mr. Linzner told U.S. District ChiefJudge Claudia Wilken during the second week of the antitrust benchtrial. A class of Division I football and men's basketballplayers is fighting for the right to enter into licensingagreements and collect royalties based on the use of their namesand likenesses.

Lead plaintiffs attorney Michael Hausfeld of the Washington, D.C.-based Hausfeld firm said after court on June 18 that Mr. Linzner'stestimony is crucial because it shows there is a market for thatinformation.

The most common request EA consumers made of the company's collegegames was to include the real athletes, as it does for itsprofessional sports games, Mr. Linzner testified. EA valuesproducing realistic sports games, and abides by the slogan, "ifit's in the game, it's in the game," he said.

Mr. Linzner and his team met multiple times with NCAA executivesin an attempt to convince them to change their rules. In a reportproduced for one such meeting, EA executives listed those rules asthe No. 1 factor holding back their company's video game growth.After more than a decade of consistent releases, EA discontinuedits college basketball game in 2009 and abandoned its collegefootball game this year. Mr. Linzner said the company still wouldbe interested in relaunching the games and obtaining licensing forthe players' avatars once this litigation comes to a close.Talking to reporters outside the courthouse, NCAA spokesmanBob Williams said Mr. Linzner's testimony affirms the NCAA'sposition that its rules never wavered, even under pressure from EAto make an exception. "The NCAA and its membership refused," hesaid. "That's very, very clear."

Plaintiffs attorneys have questioned the NCAA's commitment torules prohibiting the payment of student athletes. Last week, theNCAA settled a similar suit, agreeing to pay $20 million tocurrent and former student athletes who claim they were depictedin NCAA-licensed video games without their consent. The NCAAclaimed the settlement did not amount to paying athletes for theirperformance, but plaintiffs attorneys disagreed.

Last year, plaintiffs also settled claims against EA and theCollegiate Licensing Company for $40 million. Plaintiffs hadaccused EA of misappropriating student athletes as avatars in itsgames, something EA maintains it did not do.

"Our view was that we did not use the name, face, or likeness ofany athlete, but there's lots of plaintiffs lawyers here whoclaimed otherwise," Mr. Linzner said.

While Hausfeld handled every witness examination on June 18,Munger Tolles cycled through a roster of litigators, includingPomerantz, Rohit Singla, Kelly Klaus and Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke.Due to a scheduling conflict, Mr. Linzner, a plaintiffs' witness,testified during the defense case. University of Chicagoeconomist James Heckman, University of South Carolina PresidentHarris Pastides and Stanford University athletic director BernardMuir testified about the ways in which college sports benefitstudent athletes.

Mr. Pastides testified his school would be in trouble ifplaintiffs prevail and athletes are allowed to share inuniversities' licensing revenue. The University of South Carolinabrings in about $19.7 million a year in royalties from thebroadcast of its football and men's basketball games. Ifplaintiffs win, they will take about $9.5 million of that revenue,he said.

"That would be a very serious challenge," Mr. Pastides said. "Wewould look to cutting programs within athletics to make up forthat shortfall."

NATROL INC: "Nowicki" Suit Moved to Glucosamine/Chondroitin MDL---------------------------------------------------------------The class action lawsuit titled Nowicki v. Natrol, Inc., Case No.1:13-cv-03882, was transferred from the U.S. District Court forthe Northern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court forthe District of Maryland (Baltimore). The District Court Clerkassigned Case No. 1:14-cv-01870-JFM to the proceeding.

The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigationassigned the lawsuit to the Honorable J. Frederick Motz forcoordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in themultidistrict litigation known as In Re: Natrol, Inc.,Glucosamine/Chondroitin Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation,MDL No. 1:14-md-02528-JFM.

The Defendants distribute, market, and sell Natrol GlucosamineChondroitin supplements a line of Glucosamine and Chondroitinbased supplements that purportedly provides a variety of healthbenefits focused on improving joint health, mobility, flexibility,and lubrication.

The lawsuit challenges the Defendant's claims as to the efficacyof the Products.

NOTRE DAME DES NEIGES: Settles Cemetery Class Action for $1.2MM---------------------------------------------------------------CTV Montreal reports that hundreds of Montreal families willfinally earn some peace of mind, seven years after a labor disputethat found them caught between a cemetery and its workers.

A lockout at the Notre Dame des Neiges cemetery in 2007 meanttheir loved ones could not be buried as long as four months aftertheir deaths.

Now, a class action lawsuit with the cemetery has been settled,though families who led the charge say it's not about the moneyit's about respect.

"It was a terrible experience but we had to go through it," saidPaul Caghassi, who helped lead the charge following the death ofhis mother.

He and other grieving families formed an association and launcheda class action suit against the cemetery.

Hundreds of bodies were kept in storage as burials were halted.At one point the cemetery was receiving 50 bodies a week and evenconsidered using refrigerated food trucks for extra storage.

The Charest government finally stepped in and threatened to sendin an arbitrator if the workers and management couldn't come to anagreement. The labor dispute was settled. But the class actioncase took years.

Mr. Caghassi revealed to CTV Montreal they've won $1.2 million.

"Thirty per cent, or approximately $350,000 will be going backdirectly to the families so each family will be able to claimabout $400 maximum," he said.

About $850,000 will be put into a cemetery maintenance fund.Representatives from the association will sit on the committee.It wasn't about the money; it was about the hurt, saidMr. Caghassi.

One more challenge remains: the group of families will mobilizeagain to try and persuade the government to make burial anessential service in Quebec.

PETSMART INC: Wins Prelim. Approval of Labor Suit Settlement------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Northern District ofCalifornia granted preliminary approval to a settlement reached inthe labor suit Moore, et al. v. PetSmart, Inc., et al., accordingto the company's May 29, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 4,2014.

In May 2012, the company was named as a defendant in Moore, et al.v. PetSmart, Inc., et al., a lawsuit originally filed in theCalifornia Superior Court for the County of Alameda. PetSmartremoved the case to the United States District Court for theNorthern District of California. The complaint brings bothindividual and class action claims, first alleging that PetSmartfailed to engage in the interactive process and failed toaccommodate the disabilities of four current and former namedassociates. The complaint also alleges on behalf of current andformer hourly store associates that PetSmart failed to provide payfor all hours worked, failed to properly reimburse associates forbusiness expenses, failed to properly calculate and pay vacation,failed to provide suitable seating, and failed to provide timelyand uninterrupted meal and rest periods. The lawsuit seekscompensatory damages, statutory penalties, and other relief,including attorneys' fees, costs, and injunctive relief. InJanuary 2014, the parties entered a proposed settlement agreementto resolve this matter in line with reserves that were establishedfor this case in the first and second quarters of 2013. The motionfor preliminary approval of the settlement was filed on January31, 2014. In March 2014, the court heard oral arguments on themotion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. In May2014, the court approved the motion.

In September 2012, a former associate named the company as adefendant in McKee, et al. v. PetSmart, Inc., which is currentlypending before the United States District Court for the Districtof Delaware. The case seeks to assert a Fair Labor Standards Actcollective action on behalf of PetSmart's operations managersnationwide. The complaint alleges that PetSmart has misclassifiedoperations managers as exempt and as a result failed to pay themovertime for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week. Theplaintiffs seek compensatory damages, liquidated damages, andother relief, including attorneys' fees, costs, and injunctiverelief. The plaintiffs filed a motion for conditionalcertification in September 2013, which was granted. The courtconditionally certified a collective action consisting of allcurrent and former operations managers employed by PetSmart at anytime in the preceding three-year period. Notices were sent topotential class members in February 2014, and the 60-day periodwithin which recipients may consent to join the lawsuit closed inApril 2014. Discovery is ongoing.

PETSMART INC: Jerky Treats Suit v. Nestle Purina in Mediation-------------------------------------------------------------Mediation discussions are ongoing in a consolidated case againstNestle Purina PetCare Company on behalf of a nationwide class ofconsumers who purchased jerky treats containing duck or chickenimported from China, according to PetSmart Inc.'s May 29, 2014,Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionfor the quarter ended May 4, 2014.

On December 22, 2012, a customer filed a lawsuit against thecompany captioned Matin, et al. v. Nestle Purina PetCare Company,et al. in the United States District Court for the NorthernDistrict of California. The plaintiff claims he purchased jerkytreats containing duck or chicken imported from China that causedinjury to his pet, and he seeks to assert claims on behalf of anationwide class of consumers. The company tendered the claim toNestle Purina, and Nestle Purina is currently defending the caseon the company's behalf. In May 2013, the case was transferred tothe Northern District of Illinois and consolidated with anothercase involving the same products, Adkins, et al. v. Nestle PurinaPetCare Company, et al. Mediation discussions are ongoing.

PETSMART INC: Certification Sought in "Pace" Suit by Ex-Employee----------------------------------------------------------------Certification is being sought in a case filed against PetSmart,Inc. by a former groomer in California, according to the company'sMay 29, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended May 4, 2014.

On February 20, 2013, a former groomer in California filed acomplaint in the Superior Court of California for the County ofOrange captioned Pace v. PetSmart, Inc. PetSmart removed the caseto the United States District Court for the Central District ofCalifornia. The plaintiff seeks to certify a class of all formerPetSmart employees in California since February 20, 2010, who werenot paid all wages owed within 72 hours of their separations. Theplaintiff challenges PetSmart's use of pay cards for separationpayments and seeks waiting time penalties, attorneys' fees, andother relief. The plaintiff also asserts claims under California'sPrivate Attorney General Act as well as individual claims forwrongful termination and disability discrimination. The plaintifffiled a motion for class certification on January 31, 2014, and ahearing was held in March 2014.

QUALITY SYSTEMS: Faces Securities Lawsuit in California Court-------------------------------------------------------------Quality Systems, Inc. is facing a securities lawsuit in the UnitedStates District Court for the Central District of California,according to the company's May 29, 2014, Form 10-K filing with theU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year endedMarch 31, 2014.

The company faces risks related to litigation advanced by a formerdirector and shareholder of ours, a putative class action and ashareholder derivative claim. On October 7, 2013, a complaint wasfiled against the company and certain of the company's officersand directors in the Superior Court of the State of California forthe County of Orange, captioned Ahmed D. Hussein v. Sheldon Razin,Steven Plochocki, Quality Systems, Inc. and Does 1-10, inclusive,No. 30-2013-00679600-CU-NP-CJC, by Ahmed Hussein, a formerdirector and significant shareholder of ours. The complaintgenerally alleges fraud and deceit, constructive fraud, negligentmisrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty in connection withstatements made to the company's shareholders regarding thecompany's financial condition and projected future performance. OnNovember 19, 2013, a complaint was filed against the Company andcertain of the Company's officers and directors in the UnitedStates District Court for the Central District of California,captioned Deerfield Beach Police Pension Fund, individually and onbehalf of all others similarly situated, v. Quality Systems, Inc.,Steven T. Plochocki, Paul A. Holt and Sheldon Razin, No. SACV13-01818-CJC-JPRx, by the Deerfield Beach Police Pension Fund, ashareholder of the Company. The complaint is a putative classaction filed on behalf of the shareholders of the Company otherthan the defendants. The complaint, which is substantially similarto the complaint filed by Mr. Hussein, generally alleges thatstatements made to the Company's shareholders regarding theCompany's financial condition and projected future performancewere false and misleading in violation of the Exchange Act, andthat the individual defendants are liable for such statementsbecause they are controlling persons under Section 20(a) of theExchange Act. On January 24, 2014, a complaint was filed againstthe Company and certain of the Company's officers and current andformer directors in the United States District Court for theCentral District of California, captioned Timothy J. Foss,derivatively on behalf of himself and all others similarlysituated, vs. Craig A. Barbarosh, George H. Bristol, James C.Malone, Peter M. Neupert, Morris Panner, D. Russell Pflueger,Steven T. Plochocki, Sheldon Razin, Lance E. Rosenzweig andQuality Systems, Inc., No. SACV14-00110-DOC-JPPx, by Timothy J.Foss, a shareholder of the Company. The complaint arises from thesame allegations related to the complaints filed by Mr. Husseinand the Deerfield Beach Police Pension Fund and generally allegesbreach of fiduciary duties, abuse of control and grossmismanagement by the Company's directors, in addition to unjustenrichment and insider selling by individual directors.

SANDERSON FARMS: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Labor Suit----------------------------------------------------------The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuitaffirmed the dismissal of the suit filed by hourly employees thatworked at the Moultrie plant of Sanderson Farms, Inc., accordingto the company's May 29, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30,2014.

As reported in Item 3 of the Company's Form 10-K for the fiscalyear ended October 31, 2013, and in its Form 10-Q for the quarterended January 31, 2014, two of the company's former employeesfiled a complaint on February 16, 2012, alleging violations of thefederal and State of Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and CorruptOrganizations ("RICO") Acts against the company and seven of thecompany's current and former employees in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Middle District of Georgia. The plaintiffscontend in their complaint that the Company conspired to knowinglyhire undocumented immigrants at the Moultrie plant to "saveSanderson millions of dollars in labor costs because illegalaliens will work for extremely low wages". The action is broughtas a class action lawsuit on behalf of all legally authorizedhourly employees that worked at the Moultrie plant in the fouryears before the filing of the case. The plaintiffs are suing formoney damages, injunctive relief and revocation of the company'slicense to conduct business in the State of Georgia.

On September 13, 2012, the Court entered an Order granting amotion to dismiss the Complaint, but provided the plaintiffs anopportunity to file an Amended Complaint on one of the allegedviolations. After an Amended Complaint was filed by the plaintiffson October 5, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss theAmended Complaint on October 29, 2012. On February 5, 2013, theCourt granted the Company's motion to dismiss and entered an Orderdismissing the Amended Complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffsfiled a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appealsfor the Eleventh Circuit on February 8, 2013. The Brief forPlaintiffs-Appellants was filed on March 19, 2013, and the Brieffor Defendants-Appellees was filed on April 22, 2013. ThePlaintiffs-Appellants' Reply Brief was filed May 6, 2013. Oralargument was held on November 20, 2013. On March 7, 2014, theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmedthe dismissal of the suit.

SYMANTEC CORP: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Norton Antivirus-----------------------------------------------------------------Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that in a winfor Symantec Corp. and its lawyers at Fenwick & West, a federaljudge has dismissed a putative class action accusing the companyof promoting and selling antivirus software executives knew hadbeen rendered unreliable by a data breach.

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar ruled plaintiffs did not provideenough specific information to back up their claims that theMountain View software company engaged in fraudulent businesspractices and deceptive advertising. Judge Tigar, who haddismissed two prior complaints, denied plaintiffs leave to amendthe complaint earlier this month and granted final judgment inSymantec's favor on June 16.

"Plaintiff responded to each dismissal by advancing essentiallythe same legal arguments and alleged no new facts necessary tostate a claim," Judge Tigar wrote. "Plaintiff has given the courtno reason to believe additional facts not heretofore alleged mightbe forthcoming in any fifth complaint."

Plaintiffs alleged Symantec was hacked in 2006, potentiallyrendering Norton Antivirus and other related software ineffectiveand putting customers' personal information at risk. Symantecexecutives suspected hackers had stolen their source code soonafter the attack, according to the complaint, but they did notpublicly announce the breach until 2012. An India-based hackinggroup, known as the Lords of Dharmaraja, forced executives' handsby posting the confidential information on Pastebin.com, accordingto plaintiffs attorneys with Blood Hurst & O'Reardon in San Diego,The Coffman Law Firm in Texas and Barnow and Associates inChicago. The data pertains to 2006 versions of the software, butelements remain relevant on June 17, they wrote.

"Significant potential exists for the hackers to use the stolensource code to discern how to defeat the computer data securityprotections built into the now compromised Symantec products,"plaintiffs attorneys wrote.

Instead of coming clean to consumers about the potential dangers,Symantec continued its advertising campaigns, making claims suchas, "Symantec and Norton have created the most trusted globalbrand for protecting information and identities online," accordingto the complaint.

The judge faulted the complaint because it failed to specify whichadvertisements, if any, named plaintiff Kathleen Haskins relied onwhen making her purchases.

"It is plain from the numerous iterations of the complaint in thisaction that plaintiff cannot allege that she saw any specificrepresentation," Judge Tigar wrote.

Attorneys with Fenwick, as well as Blood Hurst, did notimmediately return calls requesting comment.

TEXAS: LULAC Files Class Action Over Deficient Language Programs----------------------------------------------------------------The Associated Press reports that a national advocacy group hasfiled a class-action, federal civil rights lawsuit against Texas,alleging that Hispanic English language learners aren't receivingadequate instruction in high schools across the state.

The League of United Latin American Citizens sued on June 10 inthe Eastern District of Texas. Its complaint named TexasEducation Commissioner Michael Williams as chief defendant.

According to Top Class Actions, the Plaintiff contends that Toyotawas aware of an alleged problem with the rear power-operated doorsin its sports utility vehicles but continued to sell them toconsumers without disclosing the defect.

UNITED STATES: Individual Indian Landowners File Class Action-------------------------------------------------------------Timber Lake South Dakota reports that individual Indianlandowners, whose earlier lawsuit seeking compensation for landtaken when the Missouri River was dammed was dismissed, are goingback to court. Their complaint, Casimir LeBeau et al vs. UnitedStates of America, was filed April 14, 2014 in US District Courtin Sioux Falls. The civil class action suit alleges that thegovernment breached its trust responsibility by failing to provideadequate compensation to individual land owners when their landwas taken for the Missouri River dams more than 70 years ago.

VIBRAM: September Deadline Set for FiveFingers Claims-----------------------------------------------------Lori Tucker, writing for WATE, reports that people who have wornFiveFingers have until September to make a claim if they hadproblems resulting from the running shoes.

Jeff McPherson gave these barefoot running shoes a try for ninemonths. As clinic director for Tennessee Orthopaedic Clinics, hewas careful to follow instructions on shoemaker VibramFiveFingers' website. It says to "listen to your feet," take itslow, and "stop if your arches or top of foot hurt." Despitefollowing those instructions, Mr. McPherson says he still hadproblems.

"The more I did it, it didn't feel right," said Mr. McPherson.

Dr. Tracy Pesut of TOC isn't surprised by the class actionlawsuits, three in all, that claim the company falsely advertisedthe potential health and fitness benefits of the footwear. Shehas treated patients for problems resulting from the shoes.

"I see a lot of plantar fasciitis is probably what I've seen withthose shoes, in the patients I've seen, and the surprising thingis that's one of the things it's supposed to help with," saidDr. Pesut.

She says if you want to transition to this shoe from a typicalrunning shoe, you must change the way you run.

"The problem is people use those shoes inappropriately. Just liketraining for anything, it's like starting from scratch, because ifyou're a heel striker and you're used to running in normal shoes,you make the transition to the barefoot running or the minimalistshoe, then you've got to totally change the way you run," shesaid.

Mr. McPherson says he's through with the FiveFingers shoes.

"I went back to tennis shoes, and the pain went away in almost twoweeks," he said.

You may be eligible for just under $100 if you purchased thoseshoes and didn't like them.

XANDOYNE PHARMACEUTICALS: Challenges Class Action Fairness Act--------------------------------------------------------------Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reportsthat two pharmaceutical drug manufacturers told a federal en bancappeals panel on June 19 that plaintiffs were trying to circumventthe U.S. Class Action Fairness Act, which requires that "massactions" be tried in federal court, by coordinating dozens ofcases in California state court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit panel, hearingarguments in Seattle on an issue of first impression, appearedreluctant to accept the drugmakers' view, since doing so couldforce California's judicial branch or legislators to change thelanguage of a common court procedure used in mass torts.

But they were quick to defend the purpose of CAFA, which was toconcentrate class actions and other mass litigation in federalcourt.

CAFA defines a "mass action" as a civil case in which claims by100 or more people are "proposed to be tried jointly." CAFAexcludes cases coordinated or consolidated for pretrial purposes.But that exception didn't apply here, because the plaintiffssought to coordinate the cases for "all purposes," according tothe language of their petition, said Jay Lefkowitz --lefkowitz@kirkland.com -- a partner in the New York office ofKirkland & Ellis.

The petition, filed under California's Code of Civil Procedure, ispart of a Judicial Council Coordinated Proceedings procedure --the state's version of the federal multidistrict litigationprocess.

Plaintiffs attorney Louis Bograd, chief litigation counsel for theCenter for Constitutional Litigation, an appellate law firm inWashington, told the panel that the defendants' arguments arebased on a "false premise."

"They want this court to believe that a petition for coordinationunder California civil procedure code section 404 is a proposalthat the claims of plaintiffs in the coordinated actions be triedjointly," he said. "It is not."

Messrs. Bograd and Lefkowitz previously took opposing roles in theU.S. Supreme Court's Pliva v. Mensing case. That 2011 decision,which expanded protections for generic drug manufacturers fromproducts-liability lawsuits, obliterated most of the litigationover Darvon and Darvocet, in which the majority of patients tookgenerics. Most of the cases were part of a related MDL beforeU.S. District Judge Danny Reeves in Frankfort, Ky. Mr. Bograd hasappealed those dismissals to the Sixth Circuit.

The hearing before the Ninth Circuit involved two of about 40lawsuits filed on behalf of more than 1,500 individuals inCalifornia's state courts alleging they suffered heartabnormalities after taking the drugs.

On Sept. 24, 2013, a panel of three judges on the Ninth Circuitfound that the plaintiffs' petition for coordination didn'tviolate CAFA because it wasn't, by its language, a proposal tohave all the cases get tried jointly. In a 2-1 opinion, CircuitJudge Johnnie Rawlinson wrote that the case differed from theSeventh Circuit's precedential 2012 decision in In re AbbottLaboratories Inc. because the plaintiffs were seeking coordinationfor pretrial purposes, not consolidation "through trial."

In a dissent, Circuit Judge Ronald Gould, calling Abbott"persuasive and relevant," said the majority opinion would createa circuit split.

The appeal invited numerous amicus groups, including the U.S.Chamber of Commerce and the American Association for Justice.Several of the 11 judges on the en banc panel asked whether thepetition, by its language, necessarily meant that all the caseswould be tried together. They also raised questions about howmuch authority California's coordination judges enjoy, such aswhether their rulings are binding or whether plaintiffs attorneyscould challenge their decisions to hear joint trials.

Circuit Judge Richard Clifton, taking a broader view, asked whythe parties had been fighting for two years over whether the casesshould be in state court or federal court.

"We have a case here with one defendant from California and veryfew plaintiffs in California," Mr. Lefkowitz said. "They couldhave availed themselves of different state regimes. Californiareally only provides this one alternative."

Mr. Bograd was blunter: "In the federal MDL, plaintiffs have notmet with a fair deal of success."

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contactPeter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.